From: The Hindu
January 19, 2012
Hate speech the Congress forgot about
Even as Facebook and Google face prosecution today, police records show how older cases against the Shiv Sena's Bal Thackeray for his inflammatory writings withered for lack of official interest.
While Union Minister for Communications and Information Technology Kapil Sibal wants to crack down on hate speech over the internet and his Ministry last week granted sanction to prosecute Facebook, Google and other websites for “instigating enmity between different groups of people,” the coalition government run by his Congress party in Maharashtra has been dragging its feet on prosecuting Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray for hate speech crimes that are much more serious.
Unlike the postings on Facebook and elsewhere, which the government apprehends might instigate enmity and violence, Mr. Thackeray's writings were considered by the Srikrishna Commission incendiary material for the violence which wracked Mumbai in 1992 and 1993, taking the lives of several hundred people.
After the communal riots in Mumbai following the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, many cases were filed against Mr. Thackeray, also the editor of Saamna, the Shiv Sena newspaper, but most of them resulted in no action. Even before and after the riots, police registered cases under section 153 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for promoting enmity but little came of them. Information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act in 2011 after a prolonged battle with the authorities and several appeals has revealed the status of some of the cases which were made available by the police. Simply put, neither the Shiv Sena-BJP government which was in power from 1995 to 1999 nor the Congress — which has been in power for three consecutive terms after that — has shown any interest in the prosecution. Cases have either been closed or are awaiting government permission to arrest the accused. The findings under RTI are excerpted from a recently published book, Riots and After in Mumbai: Chronicles of Truth and Reconciliation, by Meena Menon. An extract:
In December 2004, I had filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, asking for copies of police cases against Shiv Sena chief Mr Bal Thackeray and what action was taken in those cases. I also wanted to know the status of the cases and if they were withdrawn, and copies of documents saying so. After a long tussle, in a reply dated 19 May 2007, the Public information officer (PIO) of the Mumbai police commissionerate sent me a reply detailing eight cases filed against Mr Bal Thackeray, Shiv Sena chief and editor of Saamna between October 1992 to December 1993. The cases were filed between 20 January 1993 and 1 October 1993.
In four cases, the charge sheets were filed on 30 July 1993. All these four cases were withdrawn from the court at Dadar.
In two cases, the charge sheets were filed after the stipulated time period. And the remaining two cases have been closed for lack of evidence. No further details were available. My first appeal was dismissed but my second appeal was heard by the Chief Information Commissioner on 30 November 2009. Mr Joshi, in his final order of 8 October 2010 said, ‘In furtherance of the order given on the earlier appeal of Shrimati Menon on the same subject on 17.04.07, information about when charge sheet was filed against Shri Balasaheb Thackeray, the present information like withdrawal of cases has not been given under section 8(1) (g). Therefore the applicant has come in appeal. After hearing both sides, it is now decided that if the court has given the decision on the withdrawal of cases, then the text of the request made by the government for withdrawal of cases and the copy of the decision of the court be given to the applicant.'
The replies to my RTI started coming in from 18 January 2011. The first instalment on 18 January 2011 contained information from Dadar, Mahim and Shivaji Park police stations. In Dadar police station, there is a list of 14 cases registered under promoting enmity between groups (153A of IPC), defamatory writings, among other sections of the IPC. Of the 14 cases, three cases were closed under A summary, two of them on 31 December 1991 and one on 26 December 1991. In four cases, Mr Thackeray was acquitted after being charged under section 153 A of the IPC by the court on 18 October 1996. In two cases the court closed the cases filed under 153 A invoking section 468 (2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation which can range from six months to three years depending on the punishment). In three more cases, the matter was closed after the court accepted there is no evidence in the case. In one case, approval for C summary filed by the investigating officer is pending in court. In one more case, the case under 153A is pending since the government is yet to give approval for Mr Thackeray's arrest.
At Mahim police station, there are three older cases. In one case, Mr Thackeray was acquitted on 15 November 1990. In an old case of 1984, under section 153 A, the papers of this case are old and torn and so it is unclear what action was taken. In another case, of 1991, also under 153 A, and other sections of IPC, after the charge sheet was filed, the case was committed to the sessions court at Bandra on 27 September 1998. On 6 April 2004, the case was withdrawn after directions from the state government. No reason for withdrawal has been given.
There are two cases at the Shivaji Park police station. In one case of 2002, under section 153 A, the government is yet to give its approval to file the charge sheet in court. The matter is pending. In another case involving defamation, of 2004, the accused Mr Thackeray was not arrested even though a charge sheet was filed in court and the matter is sub judice.
In Gamdevi police station — via a letter dated 30 December 2010 — the police said it came to know in 1984 a case was registered under section 153 A, 295 A of IPC but it has no information on the current position about these offences and there is no information in the records and so it cannot be furnished.
Even before the riots, there were cases filed against Mr Thackeray but they seem to have gone nowhere. According to the records obtained under RTI, the Crime Branch unit 3, (in a letter of 12 January 2011) states that two cases were registered against Mr Thackeray at Azad Maidan police station on 28 March 1988. The government ordered the Crime Branch unit 3 to investigate these cases on 30 March 1988. According to the investigation, there was plenty of evidence under sections 153A, 153 B and 505 (1) (c) of the IPC and the Police Commissioner asked permission from the Secretary, Home Department, to file a case in court against Mr Thackeray in a letter on 9 June 1988. After that on 3 February 1995, the Additional Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, sent another letter requesting speedy clearance to file the case in court.
On 13 April 2000, the Additional Chief Secretary, Home, asked for all the police cases against Mr Thackeray, which had to be committed to court. Accordingly on 25 April 2000 police inspector M.M. Kulkarni of Crime Branch unit 3 submitted the papers to Special Branch I. After this, there is no permission forthcoming from the government till now, the RTI letter said. Till the government permission is received, the charge sheets cannot be filed in court and the cases remain pending.
(Extracted from Riots and After in Mumbai: Chronicles of Truth and Reconciliation by Meena Menon. 2012/360 pages/ Hardback: Rs 595 (978813210700) SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd. Meena Menon is Deputy Editor of The Hindu and Deputy Chief of its Mumbai bureau.)
|
Showing posts with label Mumbai riots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mumbai riots. Show all posts
January 18, 2012
August 01, 2008
The Sarpotdar case
The Sarpotdar case
Indian Express, July 31 2008
Jyoti Punwani
Mumbai is still to come to terms with the Madhukar Sarpotdar conviction. On July 9, the former Shiv Sena MP was convicted to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 for having committed an offence under Sec 153 A, i.e., promoting communal enmity. The offence had been committed during the 1992- 93 riots and the judgment was handed down by one of the two special magistrates’ courts set up in March his year to exclusively try the 1992-93 riot cases.
Madhukar Sarpotdar’s case has been the highest profile case of the Mumbai riots, thanks to the special mention it received in the Srikrishna Commission report. It concerns a procession led by the then Sena MLA in his constituency (where his party boss, Bal Thackeray also lives) addressed by Sarpotdar and other Sena leaders. Two of them (one now with the Congress) were convicted with him. The processionists carried placards and shouted slogans, some of them so vulgar that even hardened policemen refused to repeat them in court. On one of those placards was a slogan which Justice Srikrishna highlighted as illustrative of the Shiv Sena’s vigilantism during the riots. It read: ‘Only in the Shiv Sena’s terror lies the true guarantee of people’s safety.’
Just a fortnight earlier, the worst riots to hit Mumbai had ended, with 263 dead. Incidents of communal violence continued. Yet, the top police officers accompanying the 5,000-strong procession made no attempt to prevent it from being taken out, or to arrest anyone en route or after it was over. Doing so would have escalated communal tension, they told the Commission. The then Police Commissioner had agreed with this assessment.
A mere four days after the procession, communal violence erupted again in Sarpotdar’s constituency. At the height of this second phase of the riots, the army intercepted, during curfew hours, Sarpotdar in his jeep with his licensed revolver, and others, including his son, with unlicensed revolvers, choppers and hockey sticks. The local police convinced the major to hand over the case to them, arrested Sarpotdar three days later, allowed Shiv Sena women to block the highway in protest, and then produced him before the night magistrate who gave him bail immediately so as not to create further tension. Five years later, Sarpotdar was acquitted in this case because the major couldn’t recognise the weapons he had seized.
It is this background one needs to keep in mind to understand the reaction of awe and wonder that has greeted Sarpotdar’s conviction. After the Srikrishna Commission report held the Sena responsible for the second phase of the riots, the general feeling was : if Thackeray can’t be booked, let’s at least get Sarpotdar.
When Vilasrao Deshmukh set up the two courts exclusively for riot cases, he was simply taking the easiest measure to placate Muslims upset at the harsh punishment handed down to the 1993 bomb blast perpetrators, while those indicted for the riots, which had led to the blasts, remained untouched. Among the 120-odd non-descript cases sent to these courts, two had wellknown Sena leaders as accused. Former minister of state for home Gajanan Kirtikar was acquitted in May. Everyone expected Sarpotdar to walk free too.
The trial had already lasted 15 years, with magistrate after magistrate giving adjournments at the behest of the defence. Even after the Congress government took over in 1999, no special PP was appointed; indeed, one resigned after having remained unpaid for more than six months. All seven accused — six from the Sena and one from the BJP —were never present in court together, but warrants were rarely issued and if issued, not served.
Then, the police had done their best to save Sarpotdar. All that they produced in court against him as evidence was the FIR and the Station Diary Entry that had the text of the speeches, placards and slogans. Typically, they had not bothered to record the statement of any independent witness. Sarpotdar’s lawyer Jaiprakash Bagoria, who had got him acquitted in the previous riots case and also got Kirtikar acquitted, had once fought elections on a Sena ticket.
He was confident about the outcome thistime too. Ironically, it was his cross-examination that got his clients convicted. Bagoria did not deny that his clients had given speeches. In his cross, he only contested the content of the speeches. Bagoria submitted a newspaper photograph of the procession which showed no placards. The accompanying text mentioned placards and slogans Magistrate R C Bapat Sarkar, picked out from a civil court to judge cases of rioting, was the kind who scrutinised every word of the evidence before her. Hence, she read not only those excerpts of the speeches highlighted in the FIR but also the long excerpts in the Station Diary Entry, which were far more incendiary. The judgment reproduces these long excerpts to show just how “vituperative and acerbic” the speeches were, the language used leaving no doubt about their intention to promote enmity on grounds of religion.
The conclusive paragraphs of the judgment are worth reproducing only because they remind us that acts committed day in and day out by Hindutva leaders are in fact crimes for which they are never punished. Says the judgment: “All the accused have to begin with, lauded the act of destroying the Babri Masjid as a credit to the Hindus... These kind of speeches were clearly aimed at kindling the Hindu populace into an aggressive stance… Against the backdrop (of the riots) it would be obvious to any prudent person …that such incitement would lead to further aggravation of communal sentiments and violent acts.
The accused were all seasoned politicians and elected representatives with some maturity… In spite of this, it has come on record that they blatantly gave such speeches openly exhorting Hindus to take to the streets instead of discarding their responsibility towards the public of trying to alleviate tension and restore normalcy. Such acts deserve punitive measures in order to send the correct signal to society at large that wrong-doing would be punished.” The judgment is all the more remarkable because the magistrate could easily have taken the easy way out and talked about letting bygones be bygones.
After all, she had an illustrious precedent — the Bombay High Court had done that while exonerating Bal Thackeray for his editorials in Saamna, just two years after the riots. A week before this judgment, Magistrate SS Sharma’s special riots court convicted two Shiv Sainiks for rioting, the first time anyone from the party was found guilty in a 92- 93 riots case. Not in his wildest dreams would Deshmukh, whose appointment had been welcomed in Saamna, and who has shown no inclination in the eight years he’s been CM, of wanting to punish the guilty of the ’92-93 riots, have imagined such an outcome. One more wily politician thwarted by the judiciary.
Indian Express, July 31 2008
Jyoti Punwani
Mumbai is still to come to terms with the Madhukar Sarpotdar conviction. On July 9, the former Shiv Sena MP was convicted to a year’s imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 for having committed an offence under Sec 153 A, i.e., promoting communal enmity. The offence had been committed during the 1992- 93 riots and the judgment was handed down by one of the two special magistrates’ courts set up in March his year to exclusively try the 1992-93 riot cases.
Madhukar Sarpotdar’s case has been the highest profile case of the Mumbai riots, thanks to the special mention it received in the Srikrishna Commission report. It concerns a procession led by the then Sena MLA in his constituency (where his party boss, Bal Thackeray also lives) addressed by Sarpotdar and other Sena leaders. Two of them (one now with the Congress) were convicted with him. The processionists carried placards and shouted slogans, some of them so vulgar that even hardened policemen refused to repeat them in court. On one of those placards was a slogan which Justice Srikrishna highlighted as illustrative of the Shiv Sena’s vigilantism during the riots. It read: ‘Only in the Shiv Sena’s terror lies the true guarantee of people’s safety.’
Just a fortnight earlier, the worst riots to hit Mumbai had ended, with 263 dead. Incidents of communal violence continued. Yet, the top police officers accompanying the 5,000-strong procession made no attempt to prevent it from being taken out, or to arrest anyone en route or after it was over. Doing so would have escalated communal tension, they told the Commission. The then Police Commissioner had agreed with this assessment.
A mere four days after the procession, communal violence erupted again in Sarpotdar’s constituency. At the height of this second phase of the riots, the army intercepted, during curfew hours, Sarpotdar in his jeep with his licensed revolver, and others, including his son, with unlicensed revolvers, choppers and hockey sticks. The local police convinced the major to hand over the case to them, arrested Sarpotdar three days later, allowed Shiv Sena women to block the highway in protest, and then produced him before the night magistrate who gave him bail immediately so as not to create further tension. Five years later, Sarpotdar was acquitted in this case because the major couldn’t recognise the weapons he had seized.
It is this background one needs to keep in mind to understand the reaction of awe and wonder that has greeted Sarpotdar’s conviction. After the Srikrishna Commission report held the Sena responsible for the second phase of the riots, the general feeling was : if Thackeray can’t be booked, let’s at least get Sarpotdar.
When Vilasrao Deshmukh set up the two courts exclusively for riot cases, he was simply taking the easiest measure to placate Muslims upset at the harsh punishment handed down to the 1993 bomb blast perpetrators, while those indicted for the riots, which had led to the blasts, remained untouched. Among the 120-odd non-descript cases sent to these courts, two had wellknown Sena leaders as accused. Former minister of state for home Gajanan Kirtikar was acquitted in May. Everyone expected Sarpotdar to walk free too.
The trial had already lasted 15 years, with magistrate after magistrate giving adjournments at the behest of the defence. Even after the Congress government took over in 1999, no special PP was appointed; indeed, one resigned after having remained unpaid for more than six months. All seven accused — six from the Sena and one from the BJP —were never present in court together, but warrants were rarely issued and if issued, not served.
Then, the police had done their best to save Sarpotdar. All that they produced in court against him as evidence was the FIR and the Station Diary Entry that had the text of the speeches, placards and slogans. Typically, they had not bothered to record the statement of any independent witness. Sarpotdar’s lawyer Jaiprakash Bagoria, who had got him acquitted in the previous riots case and also got Kirtikar acquitted, had once fought elections on a Sena ticket.
He was confident about the outcome thistime too. Ironically, it was his cross-examination that got his clients convicted. Bagoria did not deny that his clients had given speeches. In his cross, he only contested the content of the speeches. Bagoria submitted a newspaper photograph of the procession which showed no placards. The accompanying text mentioned placards and slogans Magistrate R C Bapat Sarkar, picked out from a civil court to judge cases of rioting, was the kind who scrutinised every word of the evidence before her. Hence, she read not only those excerpts of the speeches highlighted in the FIR but also the long excerpts in the Station Diary Entry, which were far more incendiary. The judgment reproduces these long excerpts to show just how “vituperative and acerbic” the speeches were, the language used leaving no doubt about their intention to promote enmity on grounds of religion.
The conclusive paragraphs of the judgment are worth reproducing only because they remind us that acts committed day in and day out by Hindutva leaders are in fact crimes for which they are never punished. Says the judgment: “All the accused have to begin with, lauded the act of destroying the Babri Masjid as a credit to the Hindus... These kind of speeches were clearly aimed at kindling the Hindu populace into an aggressive stance… Against the backdrop (of the riots) it would be obvious to any prudent person …that such incitement would lead to further aggravation of communal sentiments and violent acts.
The accused were all seasoned politicians and elected representatives with some maturity… In spite of this, it has come on record that they blatantly gave such speeches openly exhorting Hindus to take to the streets instead of discarding their responsibility towards the public of trying to alleviate tension and restore normalcy. Such acts deserve punitive measures in order to send the correct signal to society at large that wrong-doing would be punished.” The judgment is all the more remarkable because the magistrate could easily have taken the easy way out and talked about letting bygones be bygones.
After all, she had an illustrious precedent — the Bombay High Court had done that while exonerating Bal Thackeray for his editorials in Saamna, just two years after the riots. A week before this judgment, Magistrate SS Sharma’s special riots court convicted two Shiv Sainiks for rioting, the first time anyone from the party was found guilty in a 92- 93 riots case. Not in his wildest dreams would Deshmukh, whose appointment had been welcomed in Saamna, and who has shown no inclination in the eight years he’s been CM, of wanting to punish the guilty of the ’92-93 riots, have imagined such an outcome. One more wily politician thwarted by the judiciary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
