NEW DELHI, 13 December 2007 — The Supreme Court yesterday issued a contempt notice against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi for justifying a Muslim’s killing in a fake police encounter. During a poll campaign in Gujarat on Dec. 4, Modi defended the police killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, saying “He got what he deserved.”
Senior lawyer and Bharatiya Janata Party leader Arun Jaitley appearing for Modi requested the court to postpone the hearing until the Gujarat assembly elections are over. During his arguments, he opposed the petition seeking action against Modi, saying it was not the time to issue notices as the state assembly elections were in progress.
Countering this, senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for Sohrabuddin’s brother Rubabuddin Sheikh and Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, assisting the court as amicus curiae, said it was a case that warranted the issuance of a contempt notice. The state government was simply giving an excuse, they argued.
The court rejected the Gujarat government’s appeal to put off the hearing on account of elections. “Let the notice be issued,” a bench comprising Justice Tarun Chatterjee and Justice Dalbir Bhandari said. Exempting Modi from appearing in the court, the bench said he would have to submit a written response. The court, however, did not set a date for Modi to reply.
In his petition, Rubabuddin demanded filing of a case against Modi. A petition has also been filed by lyricist Javed Akhtar seeking action against Modi.
During his argument, Subramaniam said: “The chief minister is accountable to the law and an explanation should be sought from him for his remarks. Nobody should speak publicly about a case that is sub judice,” he said.
Dismissing apprehensions of the contempt notice affecting Modi’s electoral gains in Gujarat elections, BJP spokesperson Prakash Javedkar said: “The SC’s notice will not affect Modi’s bid for re-election. People are wise enough to understand what’s going on.” The party will file a reply in time and there would be no political implications, he added.
Addressing an election rally at Mangrol in south Gujarat on Dec. 4, Modi had said Sohrabuddin had hoarded weapons and was planning terror attacks in Gujarat. He asked the crowd what should be done to an “anti-national and terrorist” like him, and Modi’s supporters shouted back: “Kill him.” Modi then asked: “Should my police go to seek (Congress chief) Sonia Gandhi’s permission for that?”
The remarks created a controversy as the killing is under investigation following the Supreme Court’s directive. The Gujarat government has, in fact, told the court in an affidavit that its anti-terror squad personnel erred in killing Sohrabuddin and has arrested three senior police officials.
Modi’s lawyer Mukul Rohtagi argued that the Election Commission was already involved in the matter involving the controversial speeches by the two leaders and any decision by the court would influence the poll panel. He was referring to Sonia’s statement calling Modi’s government “merchants of death” and Modi calling Congress “guardians of terrorists.”
“If Modi is found guilty of contempt, he will be convicted. This court is much higher and more powerful than any chief minister. But I am afraid of rival parties misusing the court’s decision either way,” said Rohtagi.
