Transcript
1. iii iii Do not print (final) HAY HOUSE INDIA Australia Canada Hong Kong India South Africa United Kingdom United States I DARE! Kiran Bedi Revised and Enlarged Edition 2. 85 85 Do not print (final) Chapter 11 The Lawyers Strike – at Kiran: She Strikes Back PERHAPS THE MOST TENSE, TIRESOME AND NERVE-RACKING TIME THAT Kiran had to endure during her term of service was during the lawyers’ strike that commenced in January 1988 and continued through June that year. However, the legal battle in and out of the courtrooms ended only in April 1990. The events that triggered off the strike were as follows. Around 2 p.m., on 15 January 1988, Ratna Singh, an English honours student of St Stephen’s College, New Delhi, came out of the toilet of the ladies’ common room and saw a man wearing a green checked coat fleeing from the place where she had left her handbag. Sensing mischief she gave chase and shouted for help. Kavita Issar, also an English honours student, saw her chasing the man in the green coat and joined the shouting. Anand Misra, a second-year chemistry honours student, heard the two girls shouting and caught the person whom they were chasing. The group was joined by Anand Prasad (second-year history honours) and Manjusha Damle (final year Sanskrit honours). Ratna Singh checked her handbag and declared that Rs 110, a cassette tape and her doctor’s prescription were missing. The items were found on the person of the man they had apprehended. The college authorities were informed and the vice-principal of the college, Horace Jacob, duly notified the Roshanara Police Station. A subinspector of police, Kawal Singh, soon appeared on the scene. The culprit accepted his crime and 3. 86 I DARE! 86 Do not print (final) maintained that he was an educated unemployed youth and had therefore resorted to stealing. He also admitted, in his own handwriting, to having stolen some money from girls’ handbags a day earlier in the same place. A Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) bus pass in the name of Manjusha Damle was also recovered from him. He gave a written statement wherein he stated that his name was Rakesh Kumar and that he lived at E-40, Model Basti, Delhi. A first information report (FIR), No. 9/88/U/S380/111/IPC was lodged with the Roshanara Police Station. During his stay at the police station, however, he gave another name and another address. The investigating officer apparently knew that the apprehended person had been giving false names and addresses and so the former felt that the latter might try to give him the slip. However, since he was taking the accused in a DTC bus (which is always very crowded) he took the extra precaution of handcuffing him for the period till he produced him before the court. At the court, however, all hell seemed to break loose. Some of the lawyers present there recognized the handcuffed man to be one Rajesh Agnihotri, a lawyer practising at the Tees Hazari courts. The investigating officer was manhandled and shouted at. On learning the identity of the accused he, however, promptly removed the handcuffs. Metropolitan Magistrate Pradeep Chaddha dismissed all charges against the accused on grounds of lack of evidence. He also directed the commissioner of police, Delhi, to take action against the concerned police officers. ‘This was a surprising decision, as the production was not for a judgement but only for remand or bail. This was a clear judgement of “NOT GUILTY”, without looking at the evidence,’ pointed out Kiran later. *** The very same day, 15 January 1988, the lawyers of the Tees Hazari courts struck work. Hari Chand, the president of the Delhi Bar Association, declared that Rajesh Agnihotri had been falsely implicated by the students of St Stephen’s College. This was because Rajesh Agnihotri had been involved in a scuffle with the students in a university special bus over the occupying of seats reserved for 4. 87 87 Do not print (final) ladies. These students, Hari Chand claimed, beat him up and took him to the college hostel where he was illegally confined for a number of hours. On a subsequent date, when he had gone to the college to visit his father, who was a reader there in the Department of Botany, he was apprehended by the students and implicated in a false case. The then president of the St Stephen’s Students’ Union Society, Rajit Punhani, said: ‘The incident [the lawyers’ response to their colleague’s arrest] erodes the confidence of the students in doing what the law requires them to do.’ The metropolitan magistrate held that there was no prima facie case against the accused and therefore the case should be immediately dropped by the police. He recorded his views as follows: ‘There’s hardly any material placed on record which should justify further detention of the accused or his trial. Nobody has actually seen the accused taking out money and also no recovery was effected. Hence, prosecution and trial will serve no purpose ...’ (signed Pradeep Chaddha, 16 January 1988). What interest the police had in pursuing the case was, however, not a matter he would care to look into. Over the days the strike gathered momentum and, on 21 January, the lawyers formed a protest procession and marched, shouting slogans, to the office of the DCP (North), namely, Kiran Bedi. The protest marchers straightaway forced entry into her office and tried to get at Kiran. She was at that time in a meeting with all her district gazetted officers, reviewing the preparation for the forthcoming 26 January parade. All of them, sensing the intrusion, sprang to their feet, and immediately came between the lawyers and their DCP and succeeded in physically pushing them out. While doing so, they bolted Kiran in, protecting her from being attacked. The additional DCP, M. S. Sandhu, being the seniormost on the spot, took charge. Other officers with Sandhu included Prabhat Singh, assistant commissioner of police (ACP), D. L. Kashyap, Vinay Chaudhury, Ram Kumar and S. B. S. Tyagi. The lawyers, for hours, remained menacing and kept on shouting filthy slogans. Sandhu continued to tolerate them, avoiding a confrontation with them as far as possible. But while he could tolerate the lawyers, some of his juniors could not. When a section of lawyers started to pull out the name plates and berets of some constables, the latter hit back, and all hell was let loose. Some lawyers were injured, as also some policemen. Photographers’ cameras were THE LAWYERS STRIKE – AT KIRAN 5. 88 I DARE! 88 Do not print (final) smashed. It was all very wild. But the lawyers’ biggest grouse was that they could not do to Kiran what they had come for. Now they wanted nothing short of her ‘head’. They went on an indefinite strike and demanded her suspension. They alleged that Kiran had ordered a lathicharge on them and made sure that they were injured. They also wanted compensation for the injuries they had received, while simultaneously demanding ‘nothing short of Kiran Bedi’s suspension’. The incident had eyewitnesses at different stages of the rapidly changing scene. Therefore, the next day’s newspapers published the versions of all sides: the injuries, the smashing of cameras, the filthy slogans and what have you! It was clearly evident from published accounts in the newspapers that the lawyers wanted to humiliate the gender in the service and perhaps send out a larger message. Otherwise, how does one explain the language and aggression displayed? After all, if it was only a matter of the accountability of a senior officer, then, by the same token, the commissioner of police could also have been gheraoed and harassed. There perhaps was something about Kiran’s way of functioning that had raised the hackles of the lawyers. Up to 7 February 1988, they did not have anything substantial against her but somehow she had to be suspended and dismissed. This was effectively achieved by playing up the handcuffing incident to create the bogey of ‘police high- handedness’. In retrospect, one wonders whether the crime prevention activities undertaken by Kiran under the commissionerate powers entrusted to her, wherein she was holding her own courts and consolidating effective crime prevention through externment proceedings, did not provide the real reason for the lawyers’ ire. After all, she seemed to have effectively curbed the role of some of the lawyers and typists as middlemen whose primary source of income was the seeking of bail for petty criminals involved in picking pockets, stealing from their own homes or those of others and delving in crimes related to their drug habits. One really wonders. *** 6. 89 89 Do not print (final) On 22 January 1988, the lieutenant governor of Delhi, H. L. Kapur, ordered a magisterial enquiry into the entire incident. The enquiry report was to be submitted within a week. The lawyers, however, would have nothing to do with this enquiry and continued to insist that they would not compromise on anything short of the dismissal of Kiran Bedi. By effectively mobilizing the system of associations and unions that are so prevalent in the country, the Delhi lawyers succeeded in persuading five lakh of their colleagues all over India to join their strike. A strike of this dimension constituted a record in the history of the legal profession. Yet, the amazing fact about this bushfire strike was that it was not engendered by any noble principle or constitutional crisis but was based on a one-point programme, i.e., the dismissal of Kiran Bedi from service. And that too on the issue of the handcuffing of a person who kept changing his name and address and was caught red-handed by the students and handed over to a police officer for legal action. The main difference was that this person happened to be a lawyer too! On 4 February 1988, the magistrate in charge of the enquiry submitted his report. He maintained that the sequence of events led him to clearly believe that Rajesh Agnihotri was definitely involved in the crime of theft and that he was rightly arrested by the police of the Roshanara Police Station. However, he held the view that Rajesh being handcuffed was not warranted. The lawyers immediately demanded that the concerned subinspector be suspended and disciplinary action taken against him for handcuffing the accused! *** Meanwhile, a judicial enquiry had been instituted into the 21 January incident of the lathicharge on the lawyers outside the office of the DCP (N). The enquiry was to be conducted by a retired judge of the Delhi High Court, Justice P. N. Khanna. He was instructed to submit an interim report within a week and the final report within a month. But this wasn’t enough for the lawyers. They wanted an THE LAWYERS STRIKE – AT KIRAN 7. 90 I DARE! 90 Do not print (final) enquiry to be conducted only by a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court. And eventually they had their way. On 7 February, the lawyers of the Supreme Court called off their strike. The lawyers of the lower courts, however, were in no mood to compromise on their one-point stand, i.e., the dismissal of Kiran Bedi, before they would take any further action on the issue. Fifteen members of the Action Committee set up by the lawyers of the Tees Hazari courts started a relay hunger strike to get their demand fulfilled. The courts thus remained paralysed. On 17 February, the Tees Hazari courts complex witnessed an unprecedented riot. People from distant places such as Samaypur and Badli (on the outskirts of Delhi) and also from adjoining areas came in trucks and tempos to protest against what they considered to be an unlawful and baseless strike. They raised slogans against the striking lawyers. The lawyers formed an opposition group immediately and slanging matches and brickbatting became the order of the day. In the ensuing melee several persons (belonging to both groups) as well as bystanders were injured. The police had to intervene to separate the groups and restore order. A number of arrests were made, the most prominent being that of a Delhi municipal councillor, Rajesh Yadav. Such a situation naturally stoked the fire of the lawyers’ agitation. They were quick to scream themselves hoarse that Kiran Bedi had engineered the whole scenario and declared that they would stop short of nothing but her ‘blood’! The interesting thing about the whole episode was that the lawyers themselves were divided about the course of events. Almost all the senior lawyers of the Supreme Court as well as the Delhi High Court were strongly opposed to the strike, whereas the junior lawyers were adamant that they would not rest till Kiran Bedi was dismissed. The senior lawyers insisted that a secret ballot be held to determine the true opinion of the majority regarding the continuation of the strike. Under vehement protests and demonstrations such a secret ballot was held in the premises of the Supreme Court Bar Association Library. Govinda Mukhoty, the president of the Delhi Bar Association Action Committee, assured one and all that there would be no force used during the balloting and that if there was, then, he would resign from his post. Ballot boxes, 8. 91 91 Do not print (final) however, were hijacked. The Supreme Court Bar Association president, M. C. Bhandare, condemned this hijacking and declared it to be highly undemocratic and an act of cowardice. ‘Those who fight for human rights should see to it that others’ right to vote should not be frustrated. The silent majority of the Supreme Court has decided to lift the siege from 7 March,’ he declared. If telling evidence of hijacking were needed, the photographs published in some newspapers showed a group of lawyers carrying away ballot boxes from the Supreme Court premises. Prominent among them were the president of the New Delhi Bar Association, Thakur Onkar Singh, and Rajesh Wadhwa, a member of the New Delhi Bar Association. The two, however, denied that the pictures were theirs but admitted that they did have a remarkable resemblance. Govinda Mukhoty stated that there was 90 per cent evidence of his ‘boys’ having been involved in the ballot-box hijacking and in the general disruption caused to the voting process but maintained that as there was still a margin of 10 per cent proof of certainty, he would not resign. Later, however, he changed his stance and said he would resign. This was enough to drive the chairman of the Delhi Bar Association, Daljit Tandon, to tears and declare that once again money power and adverse publicity were out to stifle their efforts. In another significant development, a lawyers’ delegation approached Union Home Minister Buta Singh and demanded the suspension of Kiran Bedi. The home minister rejected their appeal and requested them to call off their stir pending the report of the high-powered commission that was looking into the matter. While the striking lawyers then demonstrated against the home minister, women’s rights activists, women’s groups and university students held a massive rally to support Buta Singh’s statement. While the lawyers in Delhi continued their agitation, several high courts across the country condemned it and declared it to be illegal. They maintained that such gross dereliction of duty should be severely punished. They declared that lawyers had made it a habit of striking work on the flimsiest of pretexts without any responsibility towards their commitments, leading to the harassment of the people at large. Lawyers’ strikes had been sparked off by inane things like a judge objecting to not being addressed as ‘Your Honour’; cases being dismissed because the pleader came in late; THE LAWYERS STRIKE – AT KIRAN 9. 92 I DARE! 92 Do not print (final) and political demands for the formation of a separate Telangana state (by bifurcating Andhra Pradesh). Meanwhile, the office of the administrator of Delhi conceded to the demands of the lawyers and issued orders countermanding the enquiry by Justice Khanna. It felt that a fresh commission should be constituted to look into the entire matter from its genesis onwards. As a result, a two-bench commission, comprising Justice N. N. Goswami and Justice D. P. Wadhwa, was set up. The Goswami–Wadhwa Commission was asked to give an interim report within a specified time. It did. It held Kiran Bedi guilty on all possible counts. Soon after that Kiran was transferred to the Central Reserve Police Force, an order to be reversed within 24 hours by the personal intervention of none other than Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. He had called her for a personal meeting in which he suggested that her talents would be better utilized in the interdiction of drug trafficking (see also Chapter 9). But little did the prime minister or Kiran realize what a marathon legal battle lay ahead. Kiran used to start the day in the lawyer’s chamber, if she was lucky to have a lawyer, then go to the courts for her hearings that had assumed the shape of a public trial, then rush to attend office in the Narcotics Control Bureau and then return to the lawyer’s chamber to prepare for the next day’s hearings or prepare herself with her colleagues, namely, M. S. Sandhu, S. B. S. Tyagi, Vinay Chaudhury, Prabhat Singh, Jinder Singh and others, all serving officers of the Delhi Police. There were days in which Kiran had to be physically present in three courts, that is, before the commission of inquiry, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court. She was appearing in person, defending herself, while the seniormost of the counsel, K. K. Venugopal, would be pitted against her. Kiran lived by the hour then, as she says: morning, afternoon, evening and night. Her day, she adds, was divided into four major portions when scenes changed and so did the priorities and strategies. The slogan of a section of the lawyers was a ‘fight to the finish! We must get Kiran Bedi’s scalp’. This was a battle where one woman was visibly pitted against a large organized union of lawyers. Both sides had their grievances, without a doubt but, who was the accused and who the accuser? Kiran for the first time became a lawyer who 10. 93 93 Do not print (final) appeared for herself and filed a petition before the apex court. She recalls the help given to her by a friend, Anil Bal. He introduced her to a senior advocate, Gopal Subramaniam, who gave all possible legal guidance and staff assistance, which enabled her to prepare her petitions and appear before the Supreme Court in person. The rulings given by the Supreme Court in her case are already part of legal history and are quoted as landmark judgements delivered by Mr Justice E. S. Venkataramiah, Mr Justice M. M. Dutt and Mr Justice N. D. Ojha. Kiran had gone to the highest court, questioning her status of accused before the commission of inquiry and therefore seeking the right to defend herself. When the commission of inquiry had asked her to take the witness box to be examined, she took the stand and said, ‘I do not wish to make a statement, your lordship. I beg leave to state that.’ The judges did not say anything for some time and only then did Justice Wadhwa suggest that she take a chair while he consulted his colleague. ‘I am used to standing for long periods,’ answered Kiran. ‘Are you advising your client not to take oath?’ Justice Wadhwa asked G. Ramaswamy (Kiran’s counsel). ‘She can be prosecuted for contempt of court,’ he was told. ‘I am only asking that my client be given an opportunity to defend herself, your honour,’ said her counsel. ‘You cannot force her to take that opportunity without examining the witnesses first.’ Ramaswamy then asked the judges to overrule his plea if they so thought fit so that ‘we can move the higher courts’. Here is what appeared then in the press, which indicates the situation in the courtroom. KIRAN BEDI REFUSES TO TAKE OATH Mrs Kiran Bedi refused to take oath before Justices Wadhwa and Goswami on Thur
