In a wide-ranging interview on the order of the Supreme Court regarding investigation in the Sushant Singh Rajput case, noted lawyer and senior Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi opens up on a host of issues. Excerpts:
Q: The biggest concern was the CBI inquiry, the CBI inquiry is going ahead, but the court also said they haven’t found any fault with the government investigation or the police investigation in Maharashtra. What do you make of the judgement?
A: Look Rishabh, I think we are all bowing down to the judgement of the Supreme Court. It is the law of the land. Whatever we say and we are entitled to criticise it, analyse it, but with respect. Because one side has lost or rather two sides have lost and some sides have won; there is no doubt about it. Now there are three errors. One of the errors is what you have pointed out. And it is important to understand that one error, although I would like to speak about the other two also later on when you want me to. That is this, the judges exercised the extraordinary power under 142 of the Article of the Constitution to transfer a case as High Court judge or a Supreme Court judge can do. But, those judgements which allow him to transfer say it should be done in exceptional cases, rarest of rare, sparingly. Now, astonishingly, no exceptional, sparingly, rarest of rare circumstance is cited here. It is not rarest of rare or exceptional to see that you are a great actor or that your family is very disturbed in Patna or the two states are not agreeing. There has to be something there and there is nothing. And on top of that is the finding which you said and it’s in para 30, it is an earlier para that there is apparently nothing wrong with the Mumbai investigation. The second commonsensical thing, it hurts your common sense that where crime is local and if you accept this principle, forget this case, everything happens—suicide, murder, hitting, absconding, kidnapping in Maharashtra in Mumbai. On the basis of a race to file an FIR, if Kerala files an FIR first, it cannot give jurisdiction to Kerala. Here, the second big fallacy is saying that look Mumbai Police is investigating, they are doing a comprehensive job, but they are doing it as an investigation to find out whether there is sufficient material to lodge an FIR against some people. So, no FIR is lodged. Bihar has lodged it first, therefore Bihar gets jurisdiction. Now if this principle is accepted and you go away from Sushant Singh Rajput’s case, it means that a police force which is trying to be punctilious to find out whether to register an FIR, in what direction, in what way, just because some other state races to file an FIR that doesn’t take away the power of 175, 174 which the judge has sited against Maharashtra—to say, it’s only investigation. Even if it is only an investigation, everything occurred in Maharashtra.
Q: What do you make of the charge? Very strongly worded charges that have been put by the Bihar government making very strong accusations against the Maharashtra Police of not conducting a fair investigation.
A: Well, I think I should not bother as far as Bihar Police or other people are concerned. Everybody, as I said everybody, every commentator, every person on the street, every policeman, every lawyer, every media person has become an expert on this subject and we’ve been hearing about this. What matters is what the Supreme Court has held. What you’ve just said obviously the Supreme Court will not accept it because you rightly pointed out that there is nothing wrong with the police investigation. All kinds of inter-personal allegations were made. Suppose I wrongly quarantine you, suppose BMC wrongly quarantined you, suppose a law a rule was violated, it will not give Bihar jurisdiction because somebody has been wrongly quarantined. So, it is not a “tu-tu”, “mai-mai” game which creates a jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is not based on clutching at straws. Because on these straws, you will have the crime committed, as I said, in Kerala and some straw in Jammu and Kashmir will give the police jurisdiction.
Q: The investigation so far which has not been done by the CBI has been done by the ED; they haven’t found the money so far. When the CBI does come in, does this case then become a serious one because the charges being made are there are potentially politicians involved, and it is not about one death, it is about two deaths?
A: I would be very hesitant unlike a lot of the people you have been seeing since the last two weeks to get into this factual meritbased debate. I do believe that every person I meet is a judge, jury, executioner, prosecutor, persecutor, everything, all rolled into one. They are all giving verdicts. There is a very credible view which I can only say that there is absolutely nothing which connects any political class in Maharashtra to the case. But it is a happy hunting ground for the media. So, everyone can have an opinion; it’s a free country. Equally there is nothing today to show whether it is a suicide or a murder that the police would have decided, now the CBI will decide. One view is it’s a suicide; another view is it’s a murder.
Q: One can sympathise an anguished family, but sir, it’s not just an anguished family, it’s the government of Bihar, its political leaders, it’s the Bihar police that’s not an anguished family. They are making very serious charges.
A: I think there is no doubt in my mind that things have got bent, distorted, angularised because of politics. You see nobody is detracting from the deep anguish of the family in Bihar. There is no question of not commiserating with that very deep anguish. But that does not change jurisdiction. See, even you as a victim and I as a murderer cannot agree amongst each other or the perpetrator to create jurisdiction and choose our constituency. Suppose we both consent that I hit you and we both don’t like police X, we both consent to file a FIR in police Y, that’s not permissible. So now the court has decided and we are bound by it and ultimately the CBI, I hope, will put a quietus and not allow politics because the biggest danger is that the CBI should not be a victim of politics, also that’s my only concern.
Q: Dr Singhvi, the suspicion that many people are feeling and this has become a matter of public interest and in politics public interest matters, is that the very failure of Mumbai Police to file an FIR and investigate other aspects of this case is suspicious.
A: Mumbai Police I think if at all is guilty of over-meticulousness. I’ve seen the papers and that is why you have that sentence. Remember, a sealed cover was handed over to a judge which is a full case diary which you and I can’t see; I can see as the counsel, but normal people cannot see. The judge has seen it. And then he has recorded that sentence. Why? I do hold the Maharashtra police guilty of over-meticulousness, actually having seen the case diary because what they were doing was they were meticulously asking, they went to three psychologists, two doctors, five other people; then the allegations of Bollywood, so they went to too many people and they were in the process of making up their mind should there be an FIR, is it a foul play, is it a suicide, because a mere suicide without abetment would not be result in FIR. Now, they may have taken longer for that. I think that with greatest respect is an error of the judgement, to have treated that length of time and interpreted articles Sections 174 and 175 in a narrow way. So not filing an FIR will not give jurisdiction to Bihar who filed it first.
Q: What do we do when there is such mistrust now amongst the common public? Mistrust of Bollywood which would be Bollywood’s problem, but mistrust of government and police and investigating agencies?
A: a) Less sensationalism b) give it a quietus. The Supreme Court is, as they say, right because it is final, it need not be final, because it is right. Now we have a path, let CBI take it up, let CBI do a good job and to the extent possible, restore that trust. It is as simple as that. Here everybody keeps meddling; now tomorrow you might have people attacking the CBI without any evidence. The elections are around the corner, we know it, the CBI becomes a victim of political pressure; then it will spoil its copybook image completely and people will start asking what happened. So, I think everybody has to go by the law now. Now that the judgement has come, let us go by the law.
Q: Dr Singhvi, we know in criminal cases and if it boils down to other than money in the end somebody is dead, the evidence that is recorded in the first day or two, from the crime scene becomes so important and we’ve seen so many cases that evidence either gets compromised or the chain of custody gets compromised and then the case goes nowhere. Now, this also is causing a lot of distress to people being so long and that evidence could be compromised.
A: Hopefully and happily mostly no, maybe little bit yes. Why I say it is fortunately, though an FIR is not filed, all the evidence is in control with the Mumbai police which they are now obliged to hand over to the CBI. So, whatever evidence is there in terms of statements, photographs, exhibits is there. It’ll only go to a different agency. Not, nonexistent. And it will not be extinguished because it is now in the police control or it’ll be in the CBI control. What is important, however, is that important questions are answered quickly by the CBI which the Mumbai police would have answered in a few days, I have no doubt. And one of them is obviously how and in what context could a family pull down a person hanging and put him down flat. It is just not done. You and I can’t just go and pull down a body and make it sleep comfortably in a suicide case even. So, these are questions that have to be gone into.
Q: Where does this go from here? Is there any legal ground because the Supreme Court judgement also says that FIR does get lodged in Maharashtra, the CBI can investigate that part of the case as well. So is there any legal ground for intervention by the Maharashtra government?
A: The Maharashtra government has full jurisdiction, option, consideration regarding a review petition. Today, I am not in a position in the immediate aftermath of the judgement to say if that’ll be taken, somebody will decide and certainly within the time given of 30 days, they can file a review petition. As the law stands today, clearly only the CBI alone can investigate. If material comes to Mumbai police, they will look into it and hand it over to the CBI, as of today.
Q: I know you can’t reveal details because it is privileged information, but you have done many cases like this, many high profile ones, have you found something troubling, something dubious in the investigation that as a counsel representing Maharashtra you were worried about?
A: You can discount the fact that I’m a counsel, you can discount the fact that on some issues based on federal structure, our arguments have not been accepted, but I can tell you as objectively as possible and that is now a finding by the court that there is nothing deviant, startling, distorted or something unheard of which I have seen in a case diary or in the sequence of events. It is possible that somebody would have wrapped it up in two weeks; then people would have said it is too quick, too fast, too superficial. Somebody took longer, FIR was not filed. But even the court accepts that there is nothing wrong.
Q: Name dropping of politicians, of Aaditya Thackeray, is it all politics?
A: I have no doubt that this is the worst thing that can happen in any case. I have no hesitation in saying this kind of complete irresponsible politicking in a case is the worst thing. Right through the case, I never said a word of it. Media is largely also responsible. Everybody became a judge, jury, executioner, opinion maker. You are convicting every day, you are acquitting every day, is this the way? You say in jury trials people are more affected, what about this country? It is a free for all, it is jungle raj. Now forget this case, think about a normal case: You don’t protect the law, the law will not protect you next time. People are human beings, they get influenced and pressurised. You should never allow this and ultimately the responsibility is of the media. You can have a sober discussion, this is the law, it is a sub-judice matter and the judge should decide. I have no hesitation in saying that there were groups and classes who were out to make an opinion for the judge and virtually write a draft judgement for the judge in the media.
