11/7 accused put judge in dock

MUMBAI: The 11/7 train blasts accused created a ruckus in the court of special MCOCA judge Mridula R Bhatkar on Monday, repeatedly emphasising that they had lost faith in the court and the judicial system. Their orchestrated agitation, however, failed to cut any ice with the judge, who handled the disruptions with aplomb before finally adjourning the case to September 10.

The accused had created similar scenes on August 14 when they refused to submit to the jurisdiction of the court and the law. “We agitate for khilafat,” they had said. At that time, the judge had granted them time to have their case transferred to some other MCOCA court. MCOCA stands for Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.

The two court-appointed defence lawyers, Ashwin Rasal and Rizwan Merchant, agreed that the agitation was uncalled for. The main grievance of the accused was that they had not been discharged without a trial. “In so sensitive a case, no judge can grant discharge. The accused have to undergo the rigours of a trial and if there is no evidence against them they are bound to be acquitted.” Rasal agreed, “It is a shame that unwarranted allegations are made against a just and courageous judge.”

The ruckus began soon after the court started at 11.10 am, when the first rumble of dissent was heard. The 13 accused bunched up behind the lawyers and began to fidget, their demeanour being distinctly rebellious. Mohammed Kamal Ansari, the first accused, began it all by shouting across to the judge: “I do not want this advocate; I have no faith in him.” He then presented a handwritten application to sack his advocate while simultaneously launching into a tirade against the judge and her method of handling the case.

“I have no faith in this court. The court has not done anything about our complaints that the ATS (Anti-Terrorist Squad) enters into our prison cells to torture us and extract confessions from us. The court is siding with the ATS and has obviously predetermined our guilt. What justice can we expect from this court? We want our case transferred. We do not submit to the jurisdiction of this court.”

As if on cue, the other 12 accused raised their voices, apparently to deter the court from framing charges. The voices of Ansari and fourth accused Ehtesham Siddiqui were heard above the others. “We do not want our lawyers. We discharge them from appearance,” the 13 accused said in unison.

When the judge asked them to give their written applications in this regard, they said: “Why should we give written applications? We are saying the same thing as Ansari. His written application is enough.”

The judge reminded them that each one had to speak for himself. As if by magic, all the accused produced properly drafted applications from their pockets. After examining them, however, the judge had to refuse to take them on record as the applications were defective and did not have the requisite stamp of the jail authorities. (A court cannot accept any application from a prisoner without the stamp of the jailor.)

Ehtesham continued with his harangue: “Why do you not accept these? This is why we have no faith in this court. The court has predetermined our guilt and we do not expect a fair trial from this court. We do not submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of this court. Some of our applications are accepted (referring to Ansari’s) while others’ are not. This court has also denied us bail.”

Ehtesham and Ansari then entered into an aggressive diatribe that could be distinctly seen as contempt of court. The judge reminded the accused that they had a remedy and she had given them time since August 14 to have the matter transferred to another judge. Ehtesham was then heard shouting above the general din: “We have already applied before the principal judge for a transfer. He has not heard us yet. Where do we go? The matter will come up tomorrow. “

Ansari chipped in: “You tell us where to go. What is the law?”

The judge side-stepped the obvious provocation to advise an accused and thereby become partisan. To which Ansari and Ehtesham added another provocation: “You do not even know the law. How can we subject ourselves to being tried by you? How can we expect justice? We will not participate in the case against us in a court where we will not get a fair trial. You have not discharged us despite our telling you that this is a false case with fabricated evidence.” #

The judge contemplated issuing contempt notices against the accused, but finally decided against it and adjourned it to September 10 for framing the charges.