'First time, Shiv Sena leaders have been convicted for hate speech' - Yusuf Muchhala

Times of India, 14 July 2008

Q&A: 'Hate speech provisions have almost become a dead letter'
14 Jul 2008, 0000 hrs IST

He was the counsel who, during cross-examination, got Shiv Sena leader Madhukar Sarpotdar to enunciate to the Srikrishna Commission the Sena policy of retaliation during the 92-93 riots. Yusuf Muchhala is the only lawyer of that time still fighting in the Supreme Court to get the commission report implemented, Muchhala speaks to Jyoti Punwani:

What's the significance of this conviction?

For the first time, Shiv Sena leaders have been convicted for hate speech. This is very important because people who provoke riots normally go scot-free. As it is riot convictions are very rare, and they normally relate to acts of violence at the street level. Those who provoke violence normally remove themselves from the scene and have the ability to escape responsibility for the actual acts of violence. The provisions of Section 153 A have almost become a dead letter because the government lacks the political will to go after those who create enmity. For the first time, these sections have been rightly invoked and conviction rendered on the basis of evidence before the court.

Does this conviction change your perception of the special courts set up exclusively for riot cases?

So far as the courts are concerned, they decide matters on the basis of evidence produced before them. But my opinion on the political will to prosecute the guilty of the riots remains unchanged. In fact, this conviction — one of three convictions amid 50 acquittals — proves the rule.

A general impression is being created that this conviction will please Muslims who are unhappy about the 1993 bomb blast convictions.

It's wrong to assume that Muslims are unhappy with the bomb blast judgment. If the evidence was rightly weighed and the Supreme Court will decide that in appeal the convictions were right too. The bomb blasts were the misguided acts of a few individuals to which the community was not a party. At the community level, it was rightly felt that while the miscreants of the Muslim community were rightly brought to book, why are the miscreants of the other community, who had indulged in equally heinous acts, not being punished? One conviction is not enough to remove this feeling of discrimination.

Both the Sena and the Congress government are bound to use this case electorally.

Whatever political advantage politicians may take from it does not mean that the guilty should not be prosecuted. Whatever be the political fallout, civil society must bear it. Mumbai has seen a number of bomb blasts, but the aftermath of every blast has shown that civil society has acquired the maturity not to get divided on communal lines, despite grave provocation.