(tehelka.com
December 08, 2007)
'Modi was seeking endorsement from the crowd for extra-judicial killings'
Senior Supreme Court advocate KTS Tulsi was in the eye of a storm recently when he quit from his position as Special Counsel for the Gujarat state government in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. In an interview with SAJAI JOSE, he speaks on his decision, which came in response to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi’s controversial remarks at an election rally implying that the killing of Sohrabuddin was justified.
How did you come to know about the Narendra Modi's controversial remarks? Did you see any evidence before you reacted?
I was in Ahmedabad that day, and while watching news on TV, I came across reports that showed the Chief Minister addressing an election rally. He was asking the crowd, “what should we do with people who store guns? What should we do with the terrorists?”, to which they answered “Kill! Kill!” To which he responded something like “barabar”, and “thik hai”. His comments completely shook me up. Hearing that, there was no doubt in my mind that he was seeking an endorsement from the mob for extra-judicial killings. He went on to say that Sonia Gandhi and the Congress, these people don’t know how to deal with terrorists.
The tenor of the speech made it clear that he was justifying the police action in the case. This was diametrically opposite to his own government’s stated position in the case, which accused state police officers of cold blooded murder, which said that such and such officers planted weapons, fabricated evidence and so on. So, on the one hand the state governemnt says it’s a fake encounter masterminded by police officers, and on the other, the chief minister himself making comments justifying it, and not just that, seeking endorsement from a crowd for extra-legal killings. The two positions are completely irreconcilable.
You said Modi’s comments amounted to ‘incitement of street violence’. Can you elaborate?
If ‘Kill! Kill!’ is the law the Chief Minsiter of a state is propagating, then there’s on need for trials, no need for the judiciary in this country. So his remarks were not only at complete variance with his own government’s stated position, but they were seeking to demolish constitutional norms of the rule of law.
Before issuing your statement, did you get in touch with Modi, or any Gujarat officials seeking a clarification? Did any one from the Gujarat government try to reach you?
No. I had no time, I had to leave for Delhi immediately, I flew to Delhi, and when I reached my home, a TV crew was already waiting for me… I expressed my feelings to them. There were several phone calls asking for my reaction. Soon after that, I had to leave immediately to Pakistan for a pre-arranged meeting in Lahore with the Pakistani law minister regarding the Sikh Marriage Act. So I was unavailable for some time, so I don’t know if they tried to get in touch with me after that.
Besides, I had no duty to officially seek a clarification, or to consult them. Because if the head of the state himself is making such a statement on a matter pending before the courts, without consulting me who is representing his government in the court, then it is their lapse, not mine.
Do you see the remarks as election propaganda designed to inflame a crowd, or do you think they have unwittingly revealed the state government’s complicity in the case?
Of course it is possible that I was election propaganda. But politics should have no role in the conduct of the rule of law. When a matter is pending before courts, all parties involved in it need to be circumspect in discussing it. People’s lives may be at stake. Narendra Modi’s comments amount to interference with the judicial process. I don’t think it amounts to contempt of court, but it is still grossly improper.
Given that the fake encounter case was under a cloud of suspicion, why did you agree to represent the Gujarat government in the first place?
We can’t go by popular or media perception in such matters. Every case has two sides. We can’t claim to discover the truth without having a fair trial. It’s difficult to defend people who are rubbished by the media. Media goes hammer and tongs on people accused in case, and demonises them. As legal professionals, we can’t let media speculation bind us.
It’s difficult to imagine that the senior police officers involved in the Gujarat fake encounters were acting on their own. There’s a view that they were made scapegoats to protect their political masters. How would you respond to that?
The allegations of state complicity are wild. The investigation was handed over to an officer well known for his integrity. I had convinced the Supreme Court on behalf of the state government that the investigation was fair. Three IPS officers were arrested, including one of DIG rank. This is has never happened in this country before. None of evidence I have seen shows any sign of a cover-up. The involvement of higher-ups is media speculation. I have complete faith in the quality of investigation conducted into the case. It was speedy and fair.
You have termed Modi’s remarks ‘grossly inappropriate’ and has quit from your position as Special Counsel for Gujarat state government in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case. So how do you react to the fact that your colleague in the Supreme Court, Mr Renjit Kumar has taken over as Special Counsel in the fake encounter case, even before Modi has come up with an explanation for his controversial remarks as demanded by the Election Commission?
I respect Mr Renjit Kumar a great deal and have complete faith in his abilities. His taking on the case is based on his own understanding of professional integrity. It is for him to charter his own course. What facts must have persuaded him to take on the case I’m unable to comment. Perhaps the Gujarat state government needed to make an immediate arrangement as there was a hearing on the case on Friday.
You’re aware of Tehelka’s recent expose on the Gujarat carnage of 2002. As someone who had represented the Gujarat government in the case, what’s your view on the legal establishments role in the events. Especially since even senior figures like Arvind Pandya were shown on camera revealing his own role in the subversion of justice after the killings.
I saw the expose where several people said that the orders came from the CM himself. These revelations were nothing but an attempt by accused people to shift the burden to others. Every criminal does this. They’re motivated by self-preservation. This is an extraneous matter to the Sohrabuddin case that I was associated with; therefore I wouldn’t like to comment further on this. In the fake encounter case, we’re at the threshold of the trial. Whether there was subversion or not cannot be decided at this stage. But I can confidently say this investigation wasn’t like the Best Bakery case, where the entire machinery was subverted.
|
