The Hindu : Karnataka News : Report on Hubli riots may be tabled in Legislature

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Sep 29, 2004

Karnataka

Karnataka

Report on Hubli riots may be tabled in Legislature

By Alladi Jayasri

BANGALORE, SEPT. 28. With the Bharatiya Janata Party leader, Uma Bharti, concluding her "Tiranga Yatra" at Jallianwala Bagh, the dust might have settled on the political storm she kicked up in Karnataka. But the fate of the Justice S.R. Rajashekara Murthy Commission of Inquiry report on the riots in Hubli after the August 1994 incidents at Idgah Maidan is intriguing.

The Commission was set up by the Veerappa Moily Government to inquire into the circumstances that led to the violence that left six persons dead after police opened fire. The report was submitted a few years later when J.H. Patel was Chief Minister.

However, the report is yet to see the light of day. The Hindu learnt that the report is likely to be tabled in the Legislative Assembly in the next session. Mr. Rajashekara Murthy is a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court.

Making report public

Will it be too little too late? As per the Commissions of Inquiry Act, reports submitted by such commissions should be tabled in the Legislature or Parliament within six months of their submission. Making the report public now could be of no consequence, official sources concede, though they point out that the report would throw light on the whys and wherefores of the State Government's decision to withdraw the cases against Ms. Bharti after several years.

Sources said that it could turn out that the Commission had found nothing to justify the indictment of Ms. Bharti and others and the State Government had decided to withdraw the cases on that ground. That could also be the reason the report was not made public, as had been the case with the report of another Commission — the Justice B. Muralidher Rao Commission of Inquiry that went into the incidents of violence during the Holi celebrations in Hubli in 1992. Justice Rao, who too was a judge of the High Court, is no more.

Chargesheets

Eleven chargesheets were filed in various courts in 1995 in connection with the Idgah Maidan incidents. The chargesheet that led to Ms Bharti's "surrender drama" in Hubli last month (563/95), involving Ms. Bharti and 21 others, charged them under 14 sections of the Indian Penal Code — attempt to murder, mischief by fire or explosive substance, rioting, rioting with deadly weapons, using criminal force to deter public servants from discharging their duty, and other offences.

In January 2003, the State Government filed withdrawal applications for all the cases registered on August 14, 15 and 16, 1992. While the Judicial Magistrate permitted 10 cases to be withdrawn, in the case of 563/95 he gave an order on July 11, 2002, rejecting the application because only a Sessions Court can try Section 307.

In the two years between 2002 and 2004, the Judicial Magistrate's Court issued several summons and arrest warrants to Uma Bharti and others through the jurisdictional police to appear before the court. She ignored them.

In early May, another arrest warrant was issued. That was recalled after Ms. Bharti promised to be present at the next hearing. When she did not keep her date with the court as promised, the 19th warrant was issued on August 3, 2004, together with a proclamation for the attachment of her property.

Meanwhile, her lawyers filed a criminal revision petition (No.76/2004) on May 31 before the First Additional District and Sessions Court to set aside the July 11, 2002 order of rejection by the Judicial Magistrate.

At this stage, the Karnataka Government also decided to press for the withdrawal of the case. The Public Prosecutor in Hubli filed a criminal revision petition (No. 88/2004) on June 21, 2004, together with an affidavit to condone the delay.

The prayer made was to set aside the order of rejection dated July 11, 2002, and the most important ground cited argued: "In the public interest it is impossible for the prosecution to prove the case against her because over 5,000 party workers had formed an unlawful assembly and it was committed," the reference being to offences committed under Sections 307 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Karnataka