A newspaper report on a Delhi court dismissing bail plea of a pregnant Jamia Milia student, Safoora Zargar, accused of conspiracy in Delhi riots in February quoted the judge as saying:
“When you choose to play with embers, you cannot blame the wind to have carried the spark a bit too far and spread the fire.”
True. Very true. You can’t blame the wind for the fire. But, I have a few questions.
One, your honour, doesn’t this embers theory apply to other fires, too? Like, for example, the migrant workers crisis after a national lockdown imposed with just four hours notice, in the middle of the night? Or, all the trouble almost everyone in the country had for lack of money soon after the sudden demonetisation of some 86 per cent of money in circulation back in 2016? Why, even the spark that lit the embers that Safoora supposedly played with, the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act?
Two, we all saw the fire: northeast Delhi burning for three or four days, or more. But, at that time, for several weeks, we saw a lot of embers all over the city, many of them looked like fires, if you don’t remember you can go back to media reports those days, students were on the streets, politicians were spitting venom, police attacked students outside and inside campus, goons barged into another campus and attacked students and teachers, somebody fired at protesters… What about all those embers? What makes the police think the embers Safoora played with caused the fire? And what makes the court think giving bail to this pregnant lady could be dangerous when all those others who played with embers are free?
Three, the same newspaper report also quoted the judge as saying: “The acts and inflammatory speeches of the co-conspirators are admissible u/s 10 of the Indian Evidence Act even against the applicant.” Co-conspirators?! Your honour, are judges supposed to, or even allowed to, use terms like that to refer to petitioners, or, accused? Isn’t it in itself a judgement, even as the court reportedly said it is not delving into the merits of the case at this stage?
Just? Justice? Injustice? I just don’t get it, your honour.
