Supreme Court Review order on Gujarat Cases ( Edit., The Telegraph)

Source: The Telegraph - August 19, 2004 | Editorial
URL: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040819/asp/opinion/story_3641727.asp

JUST AFTER

The history of the Gujarat riot cases is a fable of determination and faith. The Supreme Court’s recent order for a review of all 4,200-odd cases, including the 2,000 declared “closed”, is of remarkable significance particularly for this reason. The court came to its decision in response to more than 15 petitions, which had among them one from the National Human Rights Commission and others from organizations such as the Citizens for Justice and Peace, which had helped get the Best Bakery case transferred to Mumbai. In spite of the resistance from state bodies, these organizations have kept at the job, painstakingly collecting evidence and witnesses and drawing right-thinking people to their side. The lid blew off the state government’s righteousness with the exposure of coercion of witnesses in the Best Bakery and Bilkis Bano cases. The Bharatiya Janata Party and friends of the chief minister, Mr Narendra Modi, had put on a brave face when these cases were transferred to a special court in Mumbai. Their smiles and arguments are in tatters now, because the court’s direction that a 10-member committee of senior policemen, headed by the director-general of the Gujarat police, should review all cases, hardly suggests confidence in the state government.

But the real story is about what determination and faith can achieve. The court’s decision is so reassuring for all those who had given up the hope for justice that promises of evidence are now pouring in. Many people are now willing to come to court as witnesses; by making protection for witnesses a key condition, the rights bodies struggling for justice have provided an assurance of security that has been the greatest need of Gujarat’s minority community since February 2002. The fact that the court’s detailed instructions indicate the nature of its response to the petitions is also reassuring in a different way. It not only says how the committee should go about the review, but also that if a “closed” case is reopened, the officer in charge shall not be part of the team that originally recommended closure. Besides, non-governmental organizations, so long at the forefront of this battle, would be allowed to point out which cases need further investigation. It would seem that the people’s voice is being heard in the highest institution of justice at a time when their elected government refused to hear it.