Justice Ranganath Mishra Committee enquiring into November, 1984, anti-Sikh riots has become another farce after Citizens Justice Committee decided to dissociate itself from its proceedings Justice Mishrahas made a mockery of the judicial norms and procedures in blindly obeying the government instructions and arrogantly dismissing the pleas of the Citizens Justice Committee in the same way as was done by sessions Judge Mahesh Chander who sentenced to death S. Satwant Singh, S. Balbir Singh ands, Kehar Singh in the Indira Gandhi murder case.
Even when the Justice Ranganath Mishra commission of inquiry was appointed a year ago, independent observers had predicted that it would turn out to be a lame duck investigation. A tough inquiry would have caused important heads to roll. And Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi had made no secret of his own reluctance to ‘order an official probe into the large-scale killing of Sikhs during the riots following Mrs. Gandhi’s assassination in October, 1984. He had once referred to the riots as “dead issue,” and had argued against “opening up old wounds”.
The commission was finally appointed because of public pressure and the exigencies of the Punjab accord, But those who predicted that it would not get very far seemed to find’ their prophecy coming true last fortnight when an influential body of eminent lawyer sand
jurists—the Citizens Justice Committee (CJC)-which had been invited to assist the Commission in its fact finding—withdrew s hearings after bitterly criticizing its procedures in a 44-page petition addressed to Justice Mehra.
The CJC alleged that the Commission was failing to protect wit nesses who were testifying on behalf of the victims, that the witnesses were subjected to continuing threats and intimidation and that the commission was conducting its affairs in such secrecy that no independent evaluation was possible. Said V.M. Tarkunde, ret irked judge of the Bombay High Court: “We did not feel there ‘was any point in our participating any more. This has been 2 one-sided investigations. We were never given chance to participate in it as we had been promised.
Commission personnel refused to comment on the CJC decision RL Gupta, secretary to the commission, offered “no comment” while Justice Mishra could not even be approached for a response.
The CJC’s withdrawal from the commission’s proceeding removes the only body that was actively representing victims and survivors Of the November, 1984 violence, The CJC had got more than 600 affidavits from victims alleging Participation by the police and politicians in the carnage. Among the 18 members of the committee (which grew out of an earlier team that conducted a citizens’ inquiry into the riots) are former Chief Justice SIM, Skirl, Lt, Gen. JS. Aurora and journalist Kbushwant Singh.
Relations between the Commission and the committee had never been cordial. From the start, CJC ‘members claimed that the independent investigation agency (headed by a junior superintendent of police from Orissa) appointed by the commission was not powerful enough to undertake investigation involving senior government officials and politicians, In addition, while the CJC produced hundreds of witnesses who have been subjected to rigorous cross-examination within the commission, “not one officer from the ‘government or the Delhi administration has been invited to step into the witness box,” the CIC petition said, And even though a total of some 2,900 affidavits have supposedly been filed until now, “no copy of any of the affidavits filed by people other than CJC witnesses has been provided to the CJC for scrutiny.”
A CIC member, advocates Soli Sortable, said that key interviews had been conducted behind closed doors and “we were not given an ‘opportunity to cross-examine anybody.” The CJC list of complaints against the commission is long and weighty. Vital government documents, including police reports on the riots, summoned from the govern movement at the CJC’s behest were kept secret from the CJC despite repeated requests for disclosure. Another request that nine senior government officials responsible for maintaining law and order during the riots be summoned was turned down on the grounds that their statements had already been recorded by the commission. In fact, only five of the nine had been examined by the commission, Their identities were not disclosed and their statements were not made available. In addition, “the same police officers against whom allegations of intimidation and harassment had been made by the witnesses were entrusted the task of investigating the allegations.” Their reports, along with replies from the Delhi administration were made available to the Commission but not disclosed to the CJC.
The citizens’ committee is aware that its decision to withdraw from the commission’s proceedings is likely to be misunderstood in the surcharged atmosphere in Punjab. Members said the decision had not been taken in haste, and that it had been contemplated for several months. Said Gen. JS, Aurora: “From the beginning, the terms of reference of the Commission were biased against the victims, The investigation did not go to the victims, the victims were forced to come to the investigation ‘with the burden of proof on them”
Following the CJC’s with drawl, the work of the commission is almost certain to be speeded up, But when the commission does gives its final report it may find that it has few takers.
Article extracted from this publication >> May 23, 1986
