http://www.rediff.com/news/column/column-nandini-sundar-chhattisgarh-salwa-judum-supreme-court/20110808.htm
Salwa Judum: When the government defends the indefensible
August 08, 2011 10:00 IST
*Can the governments which consistently let their lawyers down, be trusted
to uphold the rights of their people?*
*How much longer will the State fight against its own citizens, inside and
outside court, asks Professor Nandini Sundar, the lead petitioner in the
Salwa Judum case.*
When outgoing Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily [
Imageshttp://search.rediff.com/imgsrch/default.php?MT=veerappa+moily
]
declared that he was being penalised in the Cabinet reshuffle for the sins
of the line ministries, he was only voicing the sad truth -- that
governments often find it easier to shoot the messenger than understand the
message.
The Salwa Judum leaders and Special Police Officers upset at the Supreme
Court order
disarminghttp://www.rediff.com/news/report/supreme-court-strikes-down-salwa-judum-orders-cbi-probe-in-agnivesh-attack/20110705.htmthem
(*Nandini Sundar and others vs State of Chhattisgarh*, July 5, 2011) have
claimed to reporters that they were not properly represented in court.
Similar noises have emanated from the Centre. Solicitor General Gopal
Subramanium's resignation and the appointment of Rohinton Nariman in his
place may have multiple reasons.
But insofar as the Salwa Judum case goes, I can vouch for the fact that both
Subramanium and the lawyers appearing for Chhattisgarh, did their best to
defend the patently indefensible. I should know. I was present in almost all
of the 29 hearings that have been held in the case over the past four years.
Of course, I have a predilection for our advocates who have selflessly
argued *pro bono*, waiting patiently through endless adjournments sought by
the other side, and putting both soul and skilled advocacy into this matter.
Right from T R Andhyarujina, Ashish Chugh and Pragya Singh who took on the
case in 2007 when no one thought we had a remote chance of winning, to Ashok
Desai, Nitya Ramakrishnan, Menaka Guruswamy, Sumita Hazarika and others, who
have brought it to its current position, we are lucky in this country to
have a class of people who believe, for both personal and professional
reasons, in the rule of law.
While many activists were sceptical about the courts, and the Maoists,
almost by purpose, appeared to time their blasts to coincide with our
hearings, it is the lawyers who have provided not just the intellectual but
the moral support to pursue this case.
From them, I learnt not just the intricacies of the judicial system, showing
off to non-lawyer friends with newly acquired terms like 'giving
appearance', '*dasti*', 'settling cases', but also the several intangibles
that constitute good lawyering, such as Desai's courteousness to opponents,
Andhyarujina's ability to get to the point, and Nitya Ramakrishnan's passion
for thoroughness.
They showed me how evidence is created from both silences and slips, the
kind of documentation required, and the importance of choosing the right
battle.
Before this case, I had little idea of the everyday life of a lawyer. As an
academic, each adjournment felt exactly like studying for an exam which was
cancelled at the last minute. The advocates would come prepared, we would
lug all our files to court -- which grew more and more voluminous as time
went on -- and then, for one reason or another, the item would not come up.
One despairing afternoon when I wanted to give up, Menaka Guruswamy lectured
me on not betraying the rape victims.
This advice was backed by the inspiring example of the younger lawyers --
with Suhasini Sen working on the case till 11 pm on her birthday even as her
friends waited to party, and Aditya Swarup diligently digging out relevant
cases, even while studying at Oxford.
But dedicated as our lawyers were, they were helped by the wisdom of the
judges and the poverty of proof on the other side. The only defence offered
by Chhattisgarh from the beginning rested on the easily disprovable claim
that the petitioners were a front for the Maoists: 'It is reiterated that
the petition is to eulogise Naxalite activity and not to combat Naxalite
violence or to alleviate sufferings of people'.
On the other hand, there is clear evidence from government records itself,
including police diaries, of State sponsorship of the Salwa Judum; and
multiple fact-finding reports, including those by the National Commission
for the Protection of Child Rights and the National Commission for Women,
which attest to the horrors on the ground.
Even in the National Human Rights Commission's understated report, which the
state government tried to use as their defence, evidence of grave and
widespread human rights violations seeped through so clearly, that while
reading the report out in court on January 18, 2011, Harish Salve, appearing
for Chhattisgarh, was forced to admit: 'Such things happen when people
become
