The Mahmudabad Case: Justice Must Have a Heart

Remember what had happened in the case of Stan Swamy? An ailing priest of the church knowing the end was near after a prolonged illness and casual treatment in jail, had been denied his prayer to allow him to return to his parish in brutally curt words by a court.He died soon after in jail.He was not serving a term,only under detention pending trial.Throughout his stay he had been treated by jail authorities with extraordinary cruelty,for example delaying for a month the supply of straws to sip water as his palsy prevented him from drinking directly out of a glass.The court also seemed to be indifferent to his suffering.When his dying request was turned down and he breathed his last in jail,I wrote an article with the caption “Come on, Justice must have a heart!”

I had similar feelings when the Supreme Court bench, which Prof.Mahmudabad had approached in the hope of relief after having been slapped with charges of anti-national activity passed the judgment that has caused much division.He has been granted bail(interim?),but the order passed by their Lordships seems to have rubbed salt into the wound.

The honourable judges have not denied him bail,but ordered him to surrender his passport and appointed an SIT composed of three senior IPS officers from another state to enquire into his offence.But there is serious doubt if he is guilty of any offence at all.Besides one of the honourable judges accused him of design to foment communal discord.The language he used is now to be scanned for some coded signal calculated to harm India at this critical moment.Is the forming of an SIT at all warranted?Let it not be forgotten that justice must also be SEEN as done.

The editorial in Indian Express and the opinion piece by Pratap Bhanu Mehta have nailed with irrefutable argument both the glaring weaknesses of the judgment and the accompanying verbal observations and the incredible presumption about a rather innocuous post on social media.One is forced to wonder if the identity of the writer has provoked what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction.A similar thing had happened some years back when another SC bench had ordered drastic measures against intrepid Teesta Setalvad for helping Zakia Jaffery to plead with authorities to pursue the Best Bakery case of arson,rape and murder to a resolute end.She had to spend some time in jail until another bench later came to her rescue.

I am afraid the present judgment bears a resemblance similar unfortunate prejudice.A poignant cry from the heart for justice is treated like a criminal conspiracy against the state.I hope the final outcome proves me wrong.

Of course this is not to say that Prof.Mahmudabad’s opinion is right.The government may well argue that it was not mere optics to appoint Ms Qureshi as the official spokeswoman for reporting on the progress of the war.Indeed it may well retort that her appointment had been intended to dispel communal repercussions of the conflict.On the other hand Prof.Mahmudabad has a right to hold a different opinion.

In view of the periodic outbreak of communal violence and hate-posts on media in recent years and the undeniable slide of the nation’s outlook from firm and unqualified secularism the impugned post may even be held fair enough. Consider, Ms Qureshi’s appointment for role assigned to her can not really be regarded as proper recompense for the trials the Muslims have suffered in the hands of crazed mobs,with law and order authorities looking passively on.Their Lordships must be aware of the barrage of vicious trolls that rained down on Mrs Narwal when she responded to the grievous murder of her husband without succumbing to the snare of terrorists.Her words were noble and profoundly moving.Even the spokesman of the Defence Ministry could not escape barbarous barracking for not satisfying the mob’s patriotic lust for blood and gore.Against such a background Prof. Mahmudabad’s remarks are at least understandable.After all he has not courted the slightest ambiguity in denouncing the terrorists

But one is left gasping if for that post the accused is held guilty of spreading communal poison.For such an attitude itself seems to be a crying injustice.And by accusing him explicitly of seeking cheap popularity and of blowing a dogwhistle their Lordships already. seem to tilt the scales of justice against him though I am sure that was not their intention.

There is a much bigger issue not mentioned yet.Whatever the stand one might take everyone including honourable judges must be politically conscious today.One fervently hopes that they have not been oblivious of the numerous ways in which over the years there has been a steady if insidious attempt mounted by evil forces to change the very character of the constitution.Law and justice are being whittled down to permit a severe erosion of the basic principles of the constitution. Liberty and equality are being pushed out of reckoning by a monstrous reconstruction of the concepts of state and the nation. Once one realizes that the application of the mind to cases of this type has got to be more sensitive and circumspect than usually happens to be the case,the responsibility for balanced judgment becomes extremely serious indeed.

Hiren Gohain is a political commentator