Judge Jyotsna Yagnik’s Legal Acrobatics In The Maya Kodnani Case - Part 2

The determination of criminal liability requires precise evaluation of testimonies and careful analysis of each piece of evidence. To conclude the guilt of an accused, there must be concrete evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”.  But one can hardly accuse Judge Yagnik of sticking to this maxim.

In the first part of this analysis of the 2002 case against Maya Kodnani (read here), I had questioned the one-sided approach of Judge Jyotsna Yagnik in handling her case, which ended in a conviction and a 28-year jail sentence. In this part, I am providing a few salient instances of how Yagnik, during the course of trial, drew adverse inferences against Kodnani that did not convince one of her neutrality.

Jyotsna Yagnik visiting Naroda Patia before giving her judgement in 2002 riot case

One such case is that of Siddiqbhai Allabax Mansuri (prosecution witness-236), who testified before the court that Kodnani came in a Maruti car. This witness says that Kodnani arrived at the scene of crime at 8.30 am or 9 am. As per his testimony, the mob started reciting slogans of 'Jai Shri Ram' after seeing Kodnani. He further says that he saw Kodnani speaking to the mob, and instructed her PA to take out weapons from the jeep and distribute them among the mob (Pages 644-45).

Yagnik herself acknowledges that in the statement of the SIT (the Special Investigation Team appointed by the Supreme Court of India to reinvestigate the 2002 crimes), there was no mention of slogans of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ being chanted. But the same has been stated by the witness in his deposition before the court. In order to legitimise this testimony, which was critical for implicating Kodnani, Yagnik justified this contradiction in the testimony of the witness, claiming that the witness might not have mentioned this to the SIT, but that the slogans were likely to have been shouted since that was “the mental state or spirit of the day” (Para 7.13, Page 648).

Case Against Maya Kodnani, Convicted In 2002 Riots, Has Gaping Holes -- Part I

Dr Maya Kodnani was sentenced to 28 years in prison by a special trial judge for “masterminding” the riots in Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gam areas in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, in 2002. It is highly likely that Kodnani, and others, may have been framed for political reasons, while those who were guilty got away. Here’s why.

On 31 August 2012, Jyotsna Yagnik, the special trial judge, pronounced a 28-year prison sentence against Dr Maya Kodnani for “masterminding” one of the bloodiest episodes of communal violence in Ahmedabad on 28 February 2002. This judgement led to widespread jubilation in the mainstream media, orchestrated by the “secular brigade” allied to the Congress and the left parties. Kodnani was serving as a minister for women and child development in Narendra Modi’s government from 2007. So a jail term for one of Modi’s ministers gave a big boost to the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, making them believe that this would pave the way for getting at Modi himself, who was then chief minister of Gujarat.

As in the case of Lt Col Shrikant Purohit’s incarceration, none in the media examined the case with care. Purohit was released on bail in the Malegaon blasts case even though the evidence that he was aiding “saffron terrorism” was thin. The mainstream media simply reproduced the UPA-orchestrated narrative without questioning the evidence in Purohit’s case.

However, after discovering some evidence of mala fide intent in Purohit’s case, I decided to personally examine Kodnani’s case as well. The motivation for it came from reading the judgment of Judge Yagnik, who did not accept large parts of the evidence proffered in favour of Kodnani. For this purpose, I went and met Kodnani’s family in Ahmedabad about two years ago, and examined the evidence marshalled against her as well as the evidence Kodnani had put forward in her defence.

Now that my 2014 exposé regarding Purohit’s case has been vindicated and even parts of the mainstream media have accepted that the UPA government was less than fair with him by jailing and torturing a serving army officer, I hope readers will follow the details of Kodnani’s case with an open mind and judge the case on merit.

When Journalists Serve ISI Agenda

My Complaint to Press Council of India against Sagarika Ghose, Consulting Editor Times of India for her false and inflammatory statements on Twitter

To                                                                                                                              

May 26, 2017

Smt. Vibha Bhargava,

The Secretary, 

Press Council of India, 

Soochna Bhavan, 8-C.G.O. Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003

Subject: Complaint under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 against Ms. Sagarika Ghose, journalist and Consulting Editor, Times of India

Dear Madam,

The instant complaint is being lodged under Section 14 of the Press Council Act, 1978 against Ms. Sagarika Ghose, journalist and Consulting Editor, Times of India in relation to her tweet dated May 19, 2017 on social media platform, Twitter. An image of the said tweet, which Ms. Ghose has since deleted but not really retracted, is enclosed. (Annexure 1). The contents of the tweet are extracted herein below:

“Mobs are hunting and killing Muslims across India and THERE IS NO JUSTICE FOR THE KILLERS! WAKE UP, GOI!”

The sweeping, unqualified, baseless and fear-mongering nature of the tweet speaks for itself, thereby squarely attracting Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for promoting enmity and disharmony between communities. This is a text-book instance of spreading ill will and enemity between communities. Therefore, itis a cause for serious alarm for every concerned citizen who believes in peaceful co-living between diverse communities of India.

While this is not a one-off instance and is consistent with Ms. Ghose’s past conduct whereby she has passed off unverified malafide rumours as facts, what makes her current conduct, unpardonable and indefensible is that her tweet gives the impression that Muslims are being slaughtered en masse on a daily basis in India.

Such inflammatory statements have been used as convenient propaganda material by Jihadist groups to justify putting India on top of their hit list for terror attacks.

At a time when Islamist fury is on the rise in India and sympathisers of ISIS in India and abroad are looking for excuses to justify their murderous acts and indoctrination of impressionable Muslim youth in India, Ms. Ghose has time and again contributed to exacerbating the situation. The resultant fear and mistrust among Hindus and Muslims endangers national security and the safety of the every Indian citizen, regardless of his or her faith.

When I and several others responded to Ghose’s inflammatory & baseless tweet, saying we will report the matter to police unless she retracts and aplogizes publicly, she removed the tweet saying, she is deleting it in deference to “hurt” feelings. (Annexure 2) By bringing in “hurt sentiments” she opens us to the charge of “intolerance” of the kind displayed by religious bigots. This amounts to adding insult to injury.  We objected to her tweet because it was based on outright lies and deliberate attempt to create communal disharmony, not because our religious feelings were “hurt” by her calumny.

Her lack of remorse at her feckless behaviour is evident in her pseudo-apology. Her irresponsible conduct cannot be taken lightly because she is employed in a senior position at one of the most prestigeous names in Indian journalism—namely The Times of India.

Ms. Ghose cannot hide behind the oft-used alibi of free speech to defend her reprehensible tweet and conduct because the restrictions that apply to free speech under the Constitution are squarely applicable in the instant case. No individual or organization has an absolute and unbridled right to free speech, especially speech that promotes communal discord and puts in harm’s way the security of the country. Most important of all, her statement is factually incorrect. Even in countries, such as the USA and UK,where free speech is celebrated, wilful failure to undertake due diligence or deliberate spread of wrong information with inflammatory intent results in the journalist being blacklisted for employment by all credible media houses.

We urge the PCI to take firm action against the deviant behaviour of Ms. Ghose and initiate proceedings under the Press Council Act as well as under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to make an example of her for the rest of the journalistic community. This measure is urgently required for upholding the dignity of journalism since there is an increasing tendency among media persons to serve hidden agendas through their provocative writings and statements which have little grounding in reality. This is eroding people’ faith in the Fourth Estate in addition to exposing Indian society to greater risk from Islamist terror.

In the interest of keeping alive the public’s faith in PCI’s ability to call irresponsible journalists and media houses to account, it is imperative for the PCI to forthwith initiate appropriate legal action against Ms. Ghose and inform members of the public, including the complainant, of the action it takes against Ms. Ghose.

Sincerely,

Madhu Purnima Kishwar

Maulana Azad National Professor, ICSSR

Founder MANUSHI.

ANNEXURE 1

ANNEXURE 2