Thread by @GorwayGlobal

In deciding Zakia Jaffri's petition the Supreme Court Judges went beyond the questions before them. Not content with simply dismissing the petition, they sought to assert that the PM and HM were innocent and cast aspersions on the motives of the petitioner and her supporters

This is dangerous. It may well be true that there may be malafide intent behind a civil claim or a criminal prosecution. Such suspicions may be backed by evidence in which case it is for the police to investigate and prosecute. But in this case, the SC judges are

Using the prestige of their office to make allegations of intent and motive for which they cannot possibly have evidence. If all they are doing is voicing their suspicions then they are descending from the high ground of judicial independence and objectivity.

The SAT'S so-called clean chit was based on a conclusion that there was "no prosecutable evidence" against the then CM of Gujarat. In other words any prosecution would not, in their opinion, have succeeded in persuading a judge of the guilt 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

But if the Q was different, was there negligence, wilful or otherwise on the part of the State administration?, and if the civil standard of proof applied- "on the balance of probabilities" - then many reasonable people concluded that the State WAS negligent.

SIT
Typo.

Certainly, the US State Department made such a determination in 2005. This finding, and the SIT'S opinion of "No prosecutable evidence" are not mutually incompatible, i.e one does not invalidate the other.

After the Supreme Court judgement in #ZakiaJafri's petition and the arrest of #TeestaSetalvad on the basis of the wholly unjustified observations by the Judges, India must no longer hold on to any faith in the notion that the Courts can be used to hold power to account.