Following the Delhi High Court’s verdict yesterday, rejecting former UPA finance minister P Chidambaram’s anticipatory bail plea, the Congress stalwart had gone into hiding fearing arrest from investigative agencies. After remaining missing for a day, P Chidambaram was finally arrested by CBI from his residence today late evening, hours after he dramatically appeared in Congress head office addressing a press conference.
A battery of lawyers representing Chidambaram sought an urgent hearing in the apex court today morning. However, the Supreme Court denied immediate relief to the politician who is still eluding the law enforcement agencies. The CBI had issued a lookout notice for P Chidambaram who was absconding since the Delhi HC judge remarked that Chidambaram is prima facie kingpin of the INX Media Scam.
However, in order to defend P Chidambaram’s cowardice, assorted liberals have taken up the cudgel justifying his act of evading arrest. One of them, Hartosh Singh Bal, attempted to extenuate P Chidambaram by drawing a ridiculous analogy between Home Minister Amit Shah’s acquittal in Sohrabuddin Sheikh case and P Chidambaram’s recent elusion.
Quoting a tweet that said that Amit Shah resolutely faced the law when he was being hounded for his alleged role in Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case, Hartosh Singh Bal posted a tweet casting aspersions on the way Sohrabuddin Sheikh case panned out.
Bal mentioned that one of the judges assigned to the case was inexplicably transferred. The second judge, Justice Loya was found dead under mysterious circumstances and the third judge acquitted Shah and others in the case. Bal appeared to allude that the judicial course in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case was compromised as Shah was finally acquitted.
Though fundamentally, there is a profound difference between eluding the law and tackling it boldly head-on, the more appalling facet of Bal’s assertions is that the Judiciary of the country has been in cahoots with the politicians who are desirous of evading the law. In regards to Bal’s outrageous claims, nothing can be further from the truth.
Bal stated that the first judge appointed in the case, who sought Amit Shah‘s appearance in the court was transferred for still unexplained reasons. This is factually incorrect. Justice JT Utpat was transferred from Bombay High Court to Pune on his own request. JT Utpat had in the May 2014, sought for a transfer to Pune citing his daughter’s education. The Bombay High Court Registrar told on record that the High Court had acceded to a request made by Utpat.
The liberal intelligentsia has trumped up a conspiracy about the unfortunate death of Justice Loya to link it with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh case in which Amit Shah was one of the accused. Bal, citing the conspiracy alleged that the other judge assigned in the case died mysteriously. In reality, Justice Loya died of a heart attack in Nagpur, which was confirmed by other judges who had accompnied Justice Loya to Nagpur.
However, the caravan magazine proceeded to insinuate that there was foul play in his death, alleging that it was a murder. It was comprehensively debunked by Opindia and also by the Indian Express that Justice Loya died of natural causes. Despite being discredited by many news outlets, Bal continues to prop up the concoction to imply that Amit Shah had some connection to Justice Loya’s death.
The third judge, Justice S.J. Sharma, while acquitting all the 22 accused said that the evidence brought in front of him was not sufficient to prove the conspiracy as stated by the prosecution. He had further added that the prosecution could not prove it beyond reasonable doubt despite the involvement of multiple investigative agencies in the case.
Drawing preposterous analogies and brazen whatbouteries are the most used bows in the self-proclaimed liberals’ quiver. Any illegal or disreputable act committed by a non-BJP politician is always met with a conditional condemnation- mention of BJP leaders who would have had been accused in the similar or more serious incident. Absolute condemnation simply doesn’t exist in the liberal worldview, especially when the politician doesn’t belong to the saffron party.
Bal also proceeded to denounce P Chidambaram by highlighting alleged discrepancies in Shah’s trial. However, as usual, Bal was least bothered with the factual accuracy of his assertions. Unlike P Chidambaram, who went into hiding the moment Delhi HC judged pronounced witheringly scornful remarks against him, Amit Shah grasped the nettle and steadfastly faced the vicissitudes of the law, standing firm and holding his ground, until he came out of it unscathed.
