The Best Bakery Case in Gujarat, arising out of the anti-Muslim riots and violence in 2002 there, has been dismissed for the lack of evidence.  This is the 37th case of acquittal in Gujarat by fast track courts, on the same grounds. However, this case from Vadodara has been in the public eye because of the scale of killings and also because its main witness repeatedly gave evidence and statements on 15 other occasions before other enquiry committees and the media.

The case took place on 1st-2nd March, 2002 at Vadodara. The area has a 90% Hindu domination in which this Muslim owned shop stood as an island. Half of the workers of the Bakery were Hindus; the owner was a Muslim migrant from UP. Of those killed here, three were Hindu workers.

The dismissal of the case comes in the background of 90% of the 2300 accused in various cases of communal carnage in Gujarat, roaming free, with or without trials. There were 21 accused in this case. 41 of the 120 witnesses turned hostile and 73 did not give witness before the Court. The main witness refused to recognize the accused – she entered and left the Court under escort of a BJP MLA. The judge in this case, Justice Mahida, has in his 24 page judgement cited the lack of evidence as the reason for dismissal and blamed the police. He could have gone further, and even at the time of failure of witnesses to present themselves, made note of the evidence of fear psychosis and stopped the trial or at least commented on the question. No one can ignore the background to the cases wherein over 4000 post-Godhra cases were filed, of which half were finished off by the police itself citing lack of evidence and will never reach the Courts. This case too has been investigated by a policeman known to be involved in the anti-Muslim violence in the state.

The Best Bakery acquittals have come at a time when the Nanavati Commission is doing the rounds of the state investigating the post-Godhra rioting. Even before the onset of its quest, the Commission has stated that it could find no evidence of police involvement or of premeditated intervention by the state. Given this foregone premise, it is little wonder that many human rights groups in Gujarat have announced boycott of the Commission. In practise, the victims are boycotting it – voluntarily or otherwise.

The Best Bakery Case also clearly evokes past memories of similar cases in the aftermath of directed communal violence, especially the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi sponsored by the Congress. A widow who had for years specifically named and accused a prominent Congress leader of leading communal killer hordes refused to identify him when the case finally reached the stage of trial after many years. If pressures can work so long later, is it any surprise that they worked in the immediate aftermath in the Best Bakery case? The truth is that in no case of communal attacks against innocent minorities have any political leaders been convicted yet despite wide knowledge of the participation. This is true of anti-Sikh riots, Mumbai riots and earlier instances.

The need of the hour is not only to immediately ensure justice in this case but to show the way towards achieving justice in other major cases on line especially the Narodaya Patya case. The case must be re-investigated by a central agency under the watch of the Supreme Court. It must be tried outside Gujarat preferably by a court appointed by the Supreme Court. One of the main witness, Zaheera, has approached the NHRC for trial outside Gujarat. She has given outright evidence of intimidation. A case must be registered against the MLA concerned for criminal intimidation. While the NHRC is active on the case, the silence of the normally pro-active Supreme Court is disconcerting.

Delhi – Janhastakshep Public Meeting on:

“Administration of Justice on Trial – The Best Bakery Case”

Introduced before the audience by Dr. N.K. Bhattacharya, a well attended meeting on the above topic was held in Delhi on 25th July 2003 at the Gandhi Peace Foundation. Dr. Anoop presided over the meeting.

Shamshul Islam (from Nishant and teaching in DU) was the first speaker. He pointed out that the judgement given in the Best Bakery Case has several dangerous and critical consequences. He cited several examples of cases of communal riots, anti-reservation movements etc., where the criminals have gone scot-free without any punishment despite the overt presence of evidences. Hence the kind of judgement in the Best Bakery Case was nothing new, nor unique. He also pointed out that the policeman incharge (PI) of the case was known to be involved in the riots in Gujarat. The case, taken up in a fast-track court, had 120 witnesses, of which 73 did not appear in the court and 41 witnesses turned hostile, including the prime witness. Most importantly, the judge of the case, Mr. H.U. Mahida, had put forward the following arguments in 8 pages of his 24 page judgement – (a) That the Russian type of industrialization and social structure that was pursued by the Govt. in India is responsible for communalism in the country. (b) That the Govt.’s reservation policy is responsible for riots. (c) That the Gujarat incident was not only a reaction to the Godhra incident, but also is a consequence of the divide and rule policy that was pursued by the British Govt. (d) That the police caught innocent people and the police is known to do so generally. (e) That the policy of secularism is responsible for such acts and that if a person’s loyalty to his country is under question, he will have to face such consequences.

He also showed that the RSS-VHP type communalism in Gujarat is being copied by the Jamat-e-Islam in Bangladesh performing similar acts on minorities there.

The next speaker was Adv. Prashant Bhushan. He stated that the situation is that the judicial system is completely destroyed. He pointed out that the past years have shown that cases against influential criminals and people, who are closely linked with the ruling establishments, are scrapped repeatedly.

He analysed the roles played by the police (investigating agency), the public prosecutor and the court as parts of the Indian judicial system. He showed that rampant corruption and unaccountability are closely linked with them. The police are corrupt and they have submitted themselves to the corrupt system and the state. Reforms suggested by the Police Commission regarding the functioning of the police have not been implemented. He also pointed out that in India, unlike in other countries, public prosecutors work under the direct control of the Govt. They, therefore, are chosen to be those who would put forward Govt. views. In the case of judges too, there is no accountability. He suggested that there should be a national judicial commission, separate from the Govt. Of course, the Best Bakery Case is not an example of judicial corruption per se. It is an instance of choice of the Govt. and the High Court as far as judges of fast-track courts are concerned.

Mr. Bhushan stressed that the NHRC should have intervened immediately after the key witness changed her statement in front of the court and directed the court to look into the matter of why so many witnesses were turning hostile. Of course, the NHRC intervened later, after the judgement was passed and all the accused went scot-free. In this context, he maintained just a retrial is no solution to this particular issue. The case should be re-investigated by an independent investigating agency under judicial supervision, followed up by a retrial in a special court outside Gujarat, the judge of the case to be appointed by the Supreme Court. Then only can there be a scope of justice, he said. He concluded by saying that the need of the hour is a broad mass movement in order to change the system, so as to ensure real justice.

Mr. Prem Shankar Jha (eminent journalist) pointed out that Law and Order is a state issue. He stressed upon the need for a constitutional amendment for a National Judicial Commission and for setting up of special courts for the follow up of communal riot cases, and that all parties should come together for such amendments. He pointed out that minorities are targeted in such riots when they are becoming economically affluent. He noted the extent to which properties and economic establishments were destroyed in Gujarat riot. He also detailed the social effects of such anti-minority violence.

Mr. N.D. Pancholi (PUCL) was the next speaker. He started by posing the questions – What kind of Society, state and system do we want? Is this the judicial system we look for, that criminals of riotings and killings are let scot-free without any punishment at all, despite the overt presence of evidences? Of course, such questions are nothing new. The responses of the judiciary and the police were nothing unusual. There were similar responses in the past too. He also pointed out that the recommendations of the Police Commission have not been implemented till date. He also contrasted that while in the Gujarat riot cases, the accused are set free on account of ‘lack of evidences’, while in cases like that of Gilani (parliamentary blast), the accused are, on account of suspicion only, without any evidence, sentenced to death. He stressed the need for a public opinion building for changes in the judicial system.

Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed read out the Janhastakshep resolution on the issue, which was unanimously passed by the audience. It called for retrial of the case outside Gujarat, re-investigation of the case and that the case be retried by a court set up by the Supreme Court. It demanded that a case of contempt be registered against the BJP MLA who intimidated the key witness.