The Error of ‘Judgement’
The disillusionment with the true nature of the Indian judiciary is appalling
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Zakia Ahsan Jafri v State of Gujarat (2022) runs into over 450 pages, with 150 pages of “annexures” alone. Without the full context, one might imagine it to be a judgment of acquittal coming after a full trial of the then chief minister of Gujarat and the current Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the present home minister in the central government Amit Shah. Unfortunately, it is not. It is, perversely, marshalling all the facts and evidence to show why these two political leaders in question need not stand trial for any offences. It is the same exercise that the Court undertook in dismissing the need to investigate the circumstances of the death of Judge Brijgopal Harkishan Loya (Tehseen Poonawalla v Union of India [2018]). The petition, in the Loya case, as also in Jafri’s case, was to initiate the investigation rather than deliver a finding of guilt. Instead, the Court felt the need, in both cases, to go out and make a case for the innocence of the potential accused.
Filed Under
About the Author
Alok Prasanna Kumar is Co-Founder and Lead, Vidhi Karnataka. His areas of research include judicial reforms, Constitutional law, urban development, and law and technology. He graduated with a B.A. LL.B. (Hons) from the NALSAR University in 2008 and obtained the BCL from the University of Oxford in 2009. He writes a monthly column for the Economic and Political Weekly and has published in the Indian Journal of Constitutional Law and National Law School of India Review apart from media outlets such as The Hindu, Indian Express, Scroll, Quint and Caravan. He has practiced in the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court from the chambers of Mr Mohan Parasaran, and currently also co-hosts the Ganatantra podcast on IVM Podcasts.