Malegaon decision mark on investigative agencies: Irfan Qadri

Irfan Qadri

The case of Malegai bombing is no longer a judicial decision, but has become a question mark that has shaken the reputation of the entire system of justice, investigative agencies, government and media. Following the horrific tragedy of 2008, the faces brought to the court court were presented for years as a symbol of terrorism. But when the special NIA court came to honor all the accused on the basis of ‘shortage of evidence’, the foundation of justice was shaken on which the judicial system of the country was established.
The court’s decision in its location, but many serious questions are still there. If all enrolled people were innocent then who is the real criminal? If Sadhvi Pragya, Colonel Parahut and other accused were innocent, then who exploded? Who will calculate the blood of six people killed in the blasts? Who would treat his pain, psychological and physical trauma, who was injured in dozens of innocent people? These questions are not only moral, but also constitutional, which is to be given to the government, judiciary and investigative agencies. If you look at the details of the case, the case seems very complex and controversial. The explosion occurred on September 29, 2008. Initially, his investigation was handed over to Maharashtra ATS, later transferred to the NIA. There were many important arrests during interrogation, some initially made a statement.

A charge sheet with more than 5,000 pages was filed against the accused, including allegations such as terrorist provisions, conspiracy, murder and bombing. Nevertheless, the court said that the evidence is incredible and ineffective. This question is also of serious importance as to why the prosecution failed so much. If five thousand pages cannot prove a crime in the court, then who will be responsible? Was the investigation agencies unable to fulfill their basic responsibility? Or was it also suffering from political influences who unfortunately use sensitive issues like terrorism in the country for political gains? If you look at the matter from another point of view, it seems that it has become a symbol of conflict between justice and identity. In previous years, dozens of Muslim youths were arrested on charges of bombings, conspiracy or terrorism, who had been in jail for years and were eventually acquitted on the basis of lack of evidence. In the Mumbai train blast case, after nineteen years, when twelve Muslim youth were honored by the High Court, the Maharashtra government only reached the Supreme Court in nineteen hours, but in the Malegaon case, when the accused came out of non -Muslims, the same government was close. Will the pace and direction of justice be determined on the basis of religion? This question is not only emotional, but is associated with the future of the constitutional and legal structure of the country.

Another interesting aspect is that Hemant Karki, an initial investigation in the Malegaon bomb blasts, was performed on the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. Later the allegations he made was not only regrettable, but also attacked the investigative honesty of a martyr officer. If Hemant Karkare did false investigation, then why was his investigation not rejected on time? And if they were right then why did the court not accept them? Finding the response of these contradictions is not only a legal duty, but is also required for collective justice. In addition, before and after judicial decision, the way specific constituencies achieved political goals by giving the matter ‘Hindu terrorism’ or ‘soft goal’, it is clear that our system is not only legal, but also of ideological challenges. If the measure of justice is affected by religion, nationality or party affiliation, then the neutrality of the judiciary becomes a question mark.

There is no compulsion to accept that the courts decide on the basis of evidence, not of emotions. But the question is that if justice is accepted as the acquittal of the accused, then which platform is left for the victims? For those who lost their loved ones, there is an appeal for them, the door of a High Court or Supreme Court? Or were they buried just in media sensation and surrounding files? Is it a national tragedy that till date, terrorist matters in the country have not been taken with equal sensitivity nor seriously. In some cases, governments are actively appealing, media makes noise and in some cases there is silence as nothing happened. This attitude shares public belief and gives rise to public criticism of judicial decisions. Another important aspect in the context of this decision is that the government will appeal to the High Court. If the government actually believes in ‘the development of all, the development of all, the help of all’, then it has to prove that it does not discriminate on the basis of religion in the case of terrorism. If the evidence of a Muslim accused is considered necessary to appeal, the same principle should be applied to the evidence of a non -Muslim accused. The basis of justice is that the law is the same for all, not on the basis of political gains or public pressure.

Review of the details of the case also makes it clear that delay in judicial proceedings, lack of public lawyers and the absence of some important witnesses weakened the case. Many witnesses made their statement, some evidences were not acceptable in court, and some statements were dismissed as a forced crime. Despite all this, the question is whether this failure of the investigating agencies should be considered modest or intentionally? The role of media should also be discussed in this situation. When Muslim youth are arrested in an incident, the media does not delay in proving them guilty, their photos, names, details of relatives are broadcast. But when equal people are honored, there is no apology, no explanation. In contrast, when non -Muslim accused are bad, the media celebrates ‘victory of justice’. This dual standard is not only the reliability of journalism, but also democratic values.

Now the question is what should happen next? The first and quick step should be that the government should appeal to the decision in the High Court and prove that all are equal in the eyes of the law. The second step should be to conduct a neutral audit of investigative agencies to evaluate their performance and neutrality. And the third step is to give a practical guarantee of self -division and rehabilitation by all the victims, which were honored by the courts. This is the time to write a new definition of justice in the country, which is not just a book, but can be felt in real life. Otherwise, the day is not far when people lose their trust in the judiciary, government and law and no democracy can be established without confidence.