The Best Bakery case has raised some fundamental questions on a range of issues. Here are some that impinge on critical aspects of governance.

Government accountability

When protectors from crime become the perpetrators of crime, then where can one expect justice and redressal of grievances? This is the most basic and critical question that faces any law-abiding citizen in the post Gujarat riots period. The Best Bakery case has once again raised fears of blatant violations of citizens, especially those belonging to the minority communities, fundamental and human rights in states that are run by fascist regimes. It raises concerns over how to deal with the main accused when it is the government and the state machinery. The case sensitizes one to the importance of limited and accountable government. 

Appointment of public prosecutors

The case has highlighted the importance of appointing politically and ideologically neutral public prosecutors to ensure justice and retain people’s faith in the legal/judicial system. There is ample evidence to prove that no genuine attempt was made by the Gujarat government to secure justice for the aggrieved parties in the various cases relating to the riots. Janyala Sreenivasa’s article in the 19 September 2003 issue of The Indian Express, titled, “Justice? When P in VHP stands for Prosecution”, is worth mention in this context. The author cites the background of many public prosecutors, who have been appointed by the Gujarat government in important riot cases. It is shocking that most of them belong to the saffron brigade or are their supporters and sympathizers. They are associated either with the VHP, RSS or BJP in various capacities. In this situation how can one be assured of receiving justice?

False evidence

Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that punishment for the offence of giving false evidence is imprisonment which may extend to seven years, along with fine. Still, what prompts one to give false evidence under oath and how can this be prevented? Is false evidence, especially under threat to one’s life, tantamount to breach of trust, or call for punishment, as in the case of Zahira? The entire issue of dealing with ‘false evidence’ calls for a review following the Best Bakery case, in which Zahira, the prime witness backtracked on her statement before the trial court, leading ultimately to the acquittal of all the 21 accused in the case. This, despite the fact that she had recognized the accused and named them to the police during a recognition parade. This brings into the debate the controversial issue of how much weight statements given to the police should be granted while delivering justice.

Role of Civil Society

The case has brought into focus the role of civil society organizations like the National Human Rights Commission and NGOs in the quest for justice and equality. Can and should civil society organizations be permitted to sit in judgment over court verdicts? How far can they plead the cause of human rights without paralyzing or undermining the formal judicial system of the country?  Once an issue is subjudice can such organizations be allowed to act as pressure groups and exert influence on law enforcing machineries? All these questions suggest a demarcation of the roles and limits of the state and civil society to allow them to work in their autonomous and individual capacity for the betterment of the masses, without giving either the right to be overly intrusive.

Retrial

The Best Bakery case has also raised an important issue of practical relevance – the efficacy of retrial. Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India prohibits trial for the same offence twice. It states, ‘No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once’. Even the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) annuls a second prosecution. However, Zahira’s demand for retrial in the name of justice has opened a Pandora’s Box. How the apex court manages to balance the victim’s right to fair trail and the accused’s right against double prosecution would be crucial. Giving a green signal to retrials will add to the pending cases in the over loaded courts, apart from diluting the finality of judgments. This can prove detrimental and demoralizing and undermine the judiciary.

Jurisdictional Limitation

The Best Bakery case has also challenged the jurisdictional limitation of the high courts as enunciated in Article 225 of the Indian Constitution. If this succeeds, one could file a case from a place where one feels secure. But the flip side is that it will increase the time and cost of dispensing justice. There is also the fear of this provision being misused by well-to-do parties who can afford to file cases from places other than their place of residence or where the crime was committed.