The demands of justice

THE SUMMARY DISMISSAL of the charges against Mr. Bal Thackeray by a Mumbai city court on grounds that the case is ``time barred'' may be in tune with the technical provisions of the law but it clearly offends the spirit of justice. The Criminal Procedure Code (Section 473, CrPC) is indeed clear that the period of limitation need not be applied in cases where the court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay could be properly explained. The same section also provides for extension of the period of limitation in cases where the court finds ``that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice''. Given these facts, there is ample scope for the Government of Maharashtra to challenge the decision of the city court. And one would expect the Democratic Front Government in Maharashtra to exercise the option; it is also important that its officials - the police department as well as the legal wing attached to it - ensure a legally sustainable case rather than a casual approach that seemed, at least partly, to have led to the rejection of their case in the city court.

Take for instance the observations by the Supreme Court in the course of the hearing (only last week) on the public interest litigation (PIL) pertaining to action taken on the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry; contrary to the Mumbai city court's interpretation that the case against Mr. Thackeray (dating back to his writings in 1992-93) is time barred, the apex court judges were open to the question of action against Mr. Thackeray and his associates and were unhappy over the Union Law Minister's remarks that the case was time barred. The message thus was that there is a case here to invoke Section 473 of the CrPC; and the authority to do this was vested with the Mumbai city court. It was necessary for the magistrate to exercise his discretion and extend the period of limitation in this case (as provided for in the law) ``in the interests of justice''. The need to initiate proceedings against a person whose writings at that time (1992- 93) had led to arson, killing and other kinds of violence in Mumbai is certainly an instance that warranted such an extension. The charges that Mr. Thackeray through his writings had incited strife among religious communities in Mumbai in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition are not just wild statements coming from the Shiv Sena's rivals; instead, they were the findings of the Srikrishna Commission of Inquiry.

Indeed, the report of the Commission of Inquiry itself was presented only as late as in February 1998; and any mechanical application of the provisions of the CrPC would have caused any followup action on this report, prepared after long and painstaking labour by the High Court Judge, to be declared ``time barred''. Mr. Thackeray's own Shiv Sena was in power in the State at that time and his loyal soldiers simply rejected the entire report with contempt, the then State Government withdrawing all cases referred to by the commission (this particular case remained alive only due to an oversight). The Sena's soldiers have in the last few days sought to treat the process of law with disdain and contempt. The summary dismissal of the case on grounds that it is time barred will only strengthen the perception that political power can provide protection against prosecution for a crime, however seriously it hurts the social fabric.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Next     : A good beginning