Dr Javid Iqbal Saturday last week, Justice [Mufti] Bahu-ud-Din Farooqi was laid to rest. In the realm of justice though, the legacy he left, would be hard to live up to. Especially so in the conflict ridden Jammu and Kashmir, where justice is carried out more in violation of its norms than in its observance. As long as he served the bench, judicial ethic remained his benchmark. He left the bench on his own, as his uprightness in upholding justice had become a source of embarrassment for powers that be. Moreover his resignation needs to be recorded in letters of gold, as it was done on a matter of constitutional validity. Justice Farooqi was upholding the constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, as it has a separate ring to it. His abdication is also seeped in the tale of weak-kneed Delhi designed JK political operatives, apt to go to any length to please their masters. Made up justice in dealing with the transfer of Justice Farooqi out of the state, hanging of Maqbool Bhat and later Afzal Guru in Tihar Jail has more or less same ring to it. There is merit in comparison, as the authority of state was made subservient to wishes of GOI, and the constitutional subtleties overridden. Maqbool Bhat could not be hanged in 1984 without withdrawing other cases framed against him pending trial. The cases were conveniently withdrawn, easing the way for his hanging. In 2009, state government was in loop as former union home minister—SS Shinde clearly stated. Omar Abdullah government couldn’t gather the courage to act like Tamil Nadu CM—Jaylilitha in saving Tamil killers of Rajiv Gandhi or Punjab CM—Prakash Singh Badal in saving Beant Singh’s killers. The killings that were judicially substantiated, in Afzal Guru’s case, court verdict implied satisfying the collective conscience of the nation as the raison d’être. Justice Farooqi was appointed ‘Acting Chief Justice’ as Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali was elevated to Supreme Court in 1981 A.D. Power dispensing in the state was headed by patriarch of Abdullah’s—Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah. Recommendation of Abdullah led government to confirm the appointment was set aside, even as the patriarch stated that consent of the state was mandatory. The matter was raised on the floor of state assembly and the state government affirmed its take. Sheikh Abdullah threatened resignation, in case the recommendation was set aside. Delhi state organs started reacting, the news was planted that the Supreme Court Chief Justice Chanderchud was against confirming Justice Farooqi. Apex Court Chief Justice was said to have received complaints against Justice Farooqi, and on preliminary investigation found some truth in the charges leveled. Hence, it may not be right to confirm the appointment; Justice Chanderchud was quoted as saying. Justice Farooqi in a communiqué asked Justice Chanderchud to list the charges, fearlessly asking for investigations. Moreover vis-à-vis the charges, state government was not in loop. Charges if any could be investigated remained state government’s view. Bar Association lawyers demanded to know the charges, as also the complainants. Nothing came forth; the view in the state remained widespread that the charges were trumped up. There was an icing on the baked up cake, Justice Farooqi was sounded on a posting outside the state, in spite of planted news reports. The episode reeked of conspiracy at the highest level. It raised questions—if at all Justice Farooqi was implicated in any manner, why was he offered a posting outside the state? Primary requisite of a judge remains—he has to be clean beyond any measure of doubt, in JK or elsewhere. Going by that measure, how could his affirmation as Chief Justice be wrong in JK, whereas it could right in any other state? Logic vis-vis JK has mostly been a casualty in Delhi’s power corridors. Justice Farooqi’s case was no different. Why was Delhi obstinate in confirming Justice Fa Farooqi? In a landmark judgment, his casting vote as Chief Justice in a split judgment, ruled invalid the floor crossing. In early eighties, in a era of Aya Ramas’ Gaya Ramas’ it was indeed a remarkable judgment, as anti defection laws were not much in vogue. It is related that State High Court bench delivering benchmark judgments that could affect political tunings irked Delhi. Some of his other judgments came in focus. Delhi pressure ultimately worked, as Farooq Abdullah led state government in 1983 meekly submitted to GOI diktat, making light of earlier defence of state’s constitutional rights, however Justice Farooqi preferred not to give affect to his transfer, he resigned. In the papers he put in, he defended state’s constitutional right. The historical note will remain of a courageous judge upholding it, while politicians acquiesced, as they have done in many other instances. Post-retirement, he did not hang his shoes. He became a civil activist, a torch bearer in another realm of desirable human activity, as he headed ‘Jammu & Kashmir People’s Basic Rights (Protection) Committee’. His remarkable work in Kunan Khushpora mass rape case remains an added laurel, so too his framing of Hurriyat constitution. As he departed, Kashmir saluted a HERO! He will be remembered for upholding human values, human dignity, human rights, and Kashmir’s craving to live with grace. Yaar Zinda, Sohbat Baqi [Reunion is subordinate to survival]
Posted on: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:34:19 +0000