“All rise!”

All rise.

“The court is now in session. The presiding judge, the honourable [name withheld] will now hear the opening arguments and preside over the filing of preliminary charge-sheet thereof in the matter of The State of Gujarat Vs The Union of India, Criminal Application no. 343567, commonly referred to as the Ishrat Jahan Case.”

“My lord. You are a little late on this. May I, with due respect submit to –”

“Order, order! What is all this? And who are you?”

“I am the lawyer representing the CBI, your honour.”

“Is this the way to speak in front of a judge? I can hold you in contempt.”

“I sincerely apologise, your honour.”

“And what did you mean by saying I am late…?”

“I am afraid, your honour, the case has already been tried.”

“Where?”

“On television, your honour.”

“What?!”

“Yes, and the verdict, too, has been announced.”

“Nonsense. This is contempt of court.”

“Never mind that, your honour. It may please be noted by your lordship that I, [name withheld], as a lawyer representing the CBI, would now like to submit to the court the charge-sheet, in a case where the verdict has already been announced.”

“Who announced it?”

“The honourable anchors and the esteemed panellists, your honour.”

“Were the defence and prosecution adequately represented?”

“They were, your honour.”

“Who were the lawyers?

“Exactly the same lawyers who have a direct stake in this case and represent the families of the persons pertaining to this case, your honour.”

“They made their arguments knowing very well that the matter is sub-judice?”

“That has never mattered, you honour.”

“What did they say?”

“They believed the CBI’s charge-sheet, the one that I am going to file before you just now.”

“How did they believe it without having read it?”

“They read it, your honour.”

“How?”

“It was leaked to certain people, through certain avenues.”

“And after they believed your charge-sheet, that even I am yet to see…?”

“They shouted, they screamed, they smirked, they screamed again, and then they announced the verdict.”

“What is the verdict, I would like to know.”

“Yes, your honour. Especially as it will save this esteemed court its valuable time and you a lot of effort in reaching it on your own.”

“You say that in all sincerity?”

“I do, your honour. There is now no point in discussing the aforementioned case in any detail or having thus to necessitate the hearing of all arguments impartially.”

“Have they found the IB guilty?”

“Yes, your honour.”

“What about the Gujarat police?”

“Them, too, your honour.”

“Have they reached a conclusion as to whether Ms. Jahan was a terrorist?”

“Yes, your honour. She was not.”

“Have they reached a conclusion as to whether her accomplices were terrorists?”

“Yes, your honour. They were not.”

“Have they reached a conclusion as to whether it was a fake encounter.”

“Yes, your honour. It was.”

“Have they reached a verdict as to whether the Central Government under which IB falls is to blame?”

“They have, your honour. It isn’t.”

“Have they reached a verdict as to whether the Government of Gujarat is to blame?”

“Yes, your honour. It is.”

“Have they pronounced the sentence?”

“That they haven’t, your honour.”

“Why so? If the case has been tried and a verdict reached, what prevents them from pronouncing the sentence?”

“Our Constitution, your honour. A sentence can only be pronounced by a sitting judge. This is because as you know, your honour, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. An axiom of jurisprudence most unfortunate.”

“You want me to pronounce the sentence?”

“If you’d be so kind, your honour.”

“Very well. In the matter of The State of Gujarat Vs The Union of India, Criminal Application no. 343567, commonly referred to as the Ishrat Jahan Case, I now….”
This article first appeared in newslaundry on Jul. 04, 2013.