Does a government exist in State: Court
Dabholkar-Pansare Case :Concern over ‘tragic phase’ when citizens are afraid to speak out; court says soon every citizen might require police protection
Voicing concerns over the transition through a ‘tragic phase,’ the Bombay High Court on Thursday sarcastically asked whether a government exists in Maharashtra. The court said if the present situation persists then there would soon be a day when every citizen would require police protection before he or she can speak freely.
A division bench of Justices Satyaranjan Dharmadhikari and Bharati Dangre made these observations to drum into the agencies investigating the killings of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare that they need to expedite the probe.
They said, if the police machinery fails to pursue ‘offences against the society’ seriously, then there are chances the citizens might resort to violence.
In this context, Justice Dharmadhikari said, “Nowadays, we are going through a very tragic phase. Hope the authorities are aware that citizens feel unsafe while voicing their concerns or opinions. We fear that there would be a day when every citizen will require police protection to move around or to speak freely.”
The bench, without mentioning the Maratha agitation, raised concerns over the State-wide violence and apprised the police machinery of their duty and the fact that they should serve the ‘state first’ and then the government.
“What is happening in the state these days? Some citizens are descending into the streets and pelting stones on the police; they are even torching buses. Does any government exist in the state? We think the police machinery should by now understand what its priorities ought to be,” the bench said.
“The government might change tomorrow but what about the state, which is home to millions of people. You should serve the state first and then there is a government,” the bench remarked.
During the course of the hearing, the bench also refused to accept the ‘confidential’ reports submitted by the director of Central Bureau of Investigation and the state’s additional home secretary, on behalf of the Special Investigation Team.
“We are very unhappy and unimpressed with the probe as no corrective measures have been taken by the officers investigating the case.
The officers have been completely inept and insensitive in handling such sensitive cases. What is the point of the highest court in the state monitoring the case when the results are still unsatisfactory,” Justice Dharmadhikari said.
The judges, while labelling the reports as ‘rudimentary,’ further said that despite the involvement of higher officials of the CBI and the SIT, they had only managed to compile summaries of all the progress reports submitted by the agencies, so far.
Meanwhile, the agencies have sought an adjournment for two months to place on record the steps they propose to undertake for achieving further progress in the case.
The bench, however, refused to allow the prayer to adjourn the hearing for two months and instead posted the matter for further hearing on September 3.