madan lokur karan thapar

Watch | ‘Murder of Atiq Ahmed and Brother Shocking, Raises Damaging Suspicions About Police’

Former Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur tells Karan Thapar that “whilst there have been encounter deaths before” the killings of the Ahmed brothers is “probably the first time people have been killed by a third person whilst in police custody”.

Former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur says the cold-blooded killing of Atiq Ahmed and his brother Ashraf whilst in police custody is “to say the least shocking”, adding that it raises several worrying questions and suspicions about the Uttar Pradesh police.

Justice Lokur was also sharply critical of UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath’s statement on February 25 that “Mafia ko mitti mein mila denge” [Will turn the Mafia to dust], calling it “very unfortunate” and “not good at all.” He also said the Supreme Court, whilst disposing of Atiq Ahmed’s plea on March 28 for protection whilst in police custody, should have asked for “an assurance from the police” that they would protect the gangster turned politician. He twice said the court should have been “more cautious”.

In an interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire, Justice Lokur said “whilst there have been encounter deaths before” the killings of the Ahmed brothers is “probably the first time people have been killed by a third person whilst in police custody”. The police were meant to protect them but clearly failed.

Justice Lokur said the incident raised four damaging questions/suspicions about the UP police. First, why did the police not take the killers into police custody but instead send them to judicial remand? Don’t they want to/need to investigate? Second, were the police armed? If they were, why did they not fire back? If they weren’t, why not? Atiq Ahmed was clearly a man under threat. Third, how did the killers know Atiq and his brother were being taken to a hospital at 10:30 pm? And how did they know the media would be there and they could masquerade as mediapersons? Were they tipped off by someone? Fourth, what was the need to take them for a medical examination at 10:30 pm? Why couldn’t they have been taken in the morning, particularly as their police custody only ended at 5 pm on Sunday?

Speaking about UP chief minister Yogi Adityanath’s statement in the UP Assembly on February 25 that “mafia ko mitti mein mila denge”, Justice Lokur said: “ (It’s) very unfortunate to say something like this. It’s not good at all. That’s an indication there’s something wrong with the rule of law, with our judicial system.”

Watch | Supreme Court Order Upholding PMLA Amendments Has Major Flaws: Justice Lokur

In an interview with Karan Thapar, the former SC judge said the issue deserved “more serious consideration” and should have been looked at in a larger context by a larger bench.

In a wide-ranging interview, former Supreme Court judge Madan B. Lokur said he is “disappointed” that the Supreme Court did not give “more serious consideration” to many of the amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) which it recently upheld. Justice Lokur says these amendments should have been looked at in a larger context by a larger bench. He said perhaps they could have been referred to a seven-judge bench. In the interview, Justice Lokur made clear he has serious reservations about the court’s judgment, thus suggesting it has major flaws. Speaking generally about the Supreme Court, he said, “It seems to be accepting what the executive wants it to accept.” The impression has been created “the court is partial to the government”, he added.

In a 30-minute interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire, Justice Lokur explicitly made clear his differences with the bench headed by Justice Khanwilkar, which upheld the PMLA amendments. His first difference arises out of the fact a person accused under the PMLA does not have access to the Enforcement Case Report and, therefore, does not know why he is being investigated or whether he is being summoned as a witness or an accused. Even the full grounds of arrest are not shared with him. Justice Lokur said that this unfairly loads the dice against him and in favour of the government.

Justice Lokur’s second difference with the position taken by Justice Khanwilkar’s bench is the view that ED officers are not police officers and, therefore, any statement given to them as part of an inquiry can be used as evidence against you. Justice Lokur argued that whilst technically ED officers may not be police officers they do have police officer-like powers and are able to raid and arrest and, therefore, the distinction is meaningless.

Justice Lokur’s third difference arises out of the extremely onerous conditions for bail under which a PMLA accused has to virtually prove his or her innocence and assure the court he or she won’t repeat whatever they are accused of. Justice Lokur points out that after being denied the Enforcement Case Report and without knowing what he is accused of it’s very difficult, if not impossible, for an accused person to prove his innocence. Second, Justice Lokur says it’s impossible for anyone to say someone won’t do something in the future. You just don’t know.

Finally and fourthly, Justice Lokur has serious concerns with the fact the court has accepted the government’s position that “it cannot be said the presumption of innocence is a constitutional right”. Justice Lokur agreed this turns our jurisprudence on its head.

Speaking to The Wire about the fact that 5,422 money laundering cases have been registered but only 23 people convicted – a conviction rate of less than 0.5% – Justice Lokur said this raises serious questions about the quality of cases and also the quality of investigation. Justice Lokur said it seems that the poor quality of investigation is covered up by the use of draconian powers.

Asked if, in the light of the extremely poor conviction rate, the fact that 65% of money laundering cases were initiated by the Narendra Modi government in the last eight years raises the question of why are so many cases being registered, Justice Lokur said this clearly looks and sounds as if “you want to punish somebody by putting him through a process”. Justice Lokur agreed that under PMLA, the process is the punishment.

These are some highlights of Justice Madan B. Lokur’s interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire. Please see the full interview to understand Justice Lokur’s argument and his position on the PMLA Act and its amendments.

Watch | ‘Heaven Help Us if SC Judges Intended Setalvad’s Arrest’: Justice Lokur

The former Supreme Court judge tells Karan Thapar that the judges should hold a special sitting and issue a clarification that they did not intend the activist’s arrest.

In one of the most outspoken and blunt criticisms of a Supreme Court judgement by an illustrious former judge of the same court, Madan B. Lokur has said “heaven help us” if the top court intended that Teesta Setalvad should be arrested. He was referring to a sentence in the Supreme Court’s judgment rejecting a petition challenging a lower court’s refusal to file a case against Narendra Modi for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots, which says: “As a matter of fact, all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law.”

In a 30-minute interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire, Justice (Retired) Lokur said that if the concerned judges are in Delhi at the moment “they should hold a special sitting and issue a clarification that they did not intend Teesta’s arrest”. If they are not in Delhi, since this is the court’s vacation period, he added: “They could have instructed the Secretary General of the Supreme Court to issue a statement clarifying it was not our intention that Teesta be arrested.”

When it was pointed out to Justice Lokur that three days have passed yet no such statement or clarification has been issued but there is only silence from the Supreme Court, Justice Lokur agreed that the silence gets more damning for the Supreme Court. He added “the longer silence won’t improve matters”.

Speaking in some detail about the sentence in the judgment that converts the complainants into the accused, Justice Lokur said it was “totally unnecessary and very very unfortunate”. He added “there was no need to say all this”.

Justice Lokur asked, “Why is it necessary to say you need to be prosecuted for a false case?”

He said, “Thousands of false cases are filed, will everyone be prosecuted?” He then specifically added “what about the police who file lots of false cases?”

Justice Lokur agreed that this was a black day for the Court, although he said he would prefer to call it “a very grey day”.

When asked by The Wire if the court had diminished itself and let down its admirers and supporters, Justice Lokur said: “Yes, it has certainly … no one would have expected this from the Supreme Court.”

Justice Lokur said he was “disappointed and disillusioned” with the way the Court had handled this matter.

These are a few highlights of Justice Madan Lokur’s interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire. Please see the full interview to understand Justice Lokur’s arguments as well as his anguish.

Watch | ‘Terribly Disappointed’ SC Hasn’t Acted Against Calls For Genocide: Madan Lokur

Speaking to Karan Thapar, the retired judge said under Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, of which India is a signatory, a call for genocide is deemed to be the same as genocide itself.

In a forceful and outspoken interview, Justice Madan B. Lokur, one of the most illustrious former justices of the Supreme Court, has said he is “terribly disappointed” the Supreme Court has not taken cognizance of the calls for genocide. Justice Lokur said the Supreme Court should have acted immediately and that it has both a legal and moral duty to do so. Justice Lokur pointed out that under Article 3 of the Genocide Convention, of which India is a signatory, a call for genocide is deemed to be the same as genocide itself. This means, under the Convention, the crime of genocide has been committed in India and the Supreme Court’s silence and lack of action become all the more inexplicable and disturbing.

In a 17-minute interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire, Justice Lokur said even if the chief justice did not want to act suo moto, which he could have and should have, he certainly should have acted after receiving a letter from 76 lawyers, including a former law minister, asking for the Supreme Court to step in. Asked what the Supreme Court’s taking cognizance would amount to, Justice Lokur said, first, the court must immediately ask the government, both at the state and the Union government, what it’s doing and give them no more than 24 hours to reply. After that, the court should demand a fresh and full investigation done within a tight timeframe. Third, the court must insist that those who made the call for genocide are immediately arrested and, as Justice Lokur put it, “put behind bars”.

Justice Lokur said the Supreme Court has both a legal and moral duty to act when calls for genocide are made. He said the court is described as “the sentinel on the qui vive” and this means that it stands as a guardian against any violation of fundamental rights. The call for genocide is quite clearly a violation of fundamental rights.

He said it was inexplicable why the court has not acted even four days after reconvening following its new year break. Indeed, he said, the Supreme Court should have acted immediately on receipt of the letter from 76 lawyers if not earlier on a suo moto basis.

Justice Lokur agreed with a point made by Rekha Sharma, a former judge of the Delhi high court, in an article in the Indian Express, that each judge of the Supreme Court has the power as well as the obligation to act in this matter and they do not have to wait for the chief justice to initiate action. He also agreed this means that not one of the 30 judges of the Supreme Court has thought fit to take cognizance of calls for genocide and act. He agreed this is a very disturbing situation.

Finally, when Justice Lokur was asked what would be the situation and what would be the message sent to the country if the Supreme Court fails to step in and take up this matter, he said it would be “a horrifying scenario”. He added we would be in those circumstances “heading for trouble”.

The above is a paraphrased precis of Justice Madan Lokur’s interview with Karan Thapar for The Wire. Although recounted from memory it is not inaccurate. However, please see the full interview for a better and more complete understanding of Justice Lokur’s arguments and viewpoint.