It has now been revealed that the proposal to instruct the Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors at various courts in Goa to withdraw prosecutions filed under Sec 506 of Indian Penal code was initiated by the Advocate General of Goa, Mr. Subodh Kantak.
The tearing hurry with which the file with this proposal mooted by the Advocate General snaked through the corridors of power in one evening has left many questions unanswered. Advocate General Subodh Kantak’s proposal was handed over to the Under Secretary, Home on 30th June at 5.30 pm. The same after being viewed by the Special Secretary (Home) was processed by the Under Secretary, Home and put up again to the Special Secretary (Home) who then passed it on to the Law Secretary after whose perusal the file was placed before the Chief Secretary and then the file traveled to the Home Minister and later to the Chief Minister, all that same evening. Why the hurry to consider an issue with such far reaching legal repercussions has not been explained. Why the Advocate General decided to show so much eagerness and interest in personally moving the proposal, also remains unanswered. This, when viewed in contrast to files concerning welfare measures for the Aam Aadmi that crawl if not stalled for weeks and months together, leaves one flabbergasted. State Governments usually seek legal opinion from an Advocate General but in this case it was the Advocate General’s proposal that was sent to the government for consideration and approval. The legal position is that offences under 506 of the Indian Penal Code have been cognizable and non-bailable in the State of Goa from 1973. By the Corrigendum dated 5th July 1973 published in the Official Gazette dated 26th July 1973 to the earlier Notification published in the Official Gazette dated 5th July 1973 offences under Section 506 of IPC have been expressly made cognizable. The Honourable High Court will now decide whether Section 506 of IPC is cognizable and non-bailable in the State of Goa. It is under this very section that Health Minister of Goa Mr. Vishwajit Rane has been charge sheeted. It is for the first time that a Minister has legally challenged a government notification. Ironically the notification issued in 1973 making Sec 506 cognizable and non bailable was issued when Mr. Pratapsingh Rane was the Law Minister and has come to haunt his son Vishwajit Rane 36 years later. In his five page note to the Government proposing that cases under Sec 506 be withdrawn, Advocate General Subodh Kantak has agreed that the corrigendum issued on 27th June 1973 was not brought to the notice of the High Court earlier and that the police were also not aware of the corrigendum while himself stating that the corrigendum was sent to him by the Director General of Police on 29th June this year. What is surprising is that though the Advocate General in his note states that the later notification dated 11th May 2004 was not published and yet he submits that the said notification superseded the 27th June 1973 notification. The Special Secretary, Home disagreeing with the Advocate General’s view, has very rightly in his notings stated that the issue whether non publication of notification dated 11th May 2004 makes it unenforceable and that offences mentioned in the notification including 506 of IPC cannot be treated as cognizable and non-bailable is a matter that should be left to the Honourable High Court to decide. On the issue of withdrawal of cases the Special Secretary, Home stated that the opinion of the Law department be sought. The Law Secretary in his notings refraining from commenting on the Advocate General’s proposal states that any opinion given by Advocate General on any issue is final and that the Home department should follow the opinion and advice of the Advocate General. What the Law Secretary failed to appreciate was that this was not a mere opinion or advice from the Advocate General but the proposal itself was initiated by the Advocate General himself which is contrary to rules of business of government. The Chief Secretary in his noting has candidly stated that the Law Secretary by not offering his view on the issue has left the whole issue unanswered. It is shocking to note that instead of awaiting the decision of the Hon. High Court on the issue whether Section 506 is cognizable and after non-bailable, the haste of the Government in deciding to rush with instructions to the PPs and APP’s, is a clear collusive attempt to undermine the judicial process and the charge-sheet against the Health Minister of Goa Mr. Vishwajit Rane. The decision of the government to withdraw all prosecutions under Sec 506 of IPC is malafide, having been taken to benefit the Health Minister of Goa Mr. Vishwajit Rane to save him from facing a criminal trial. It is pertinent to note that while the issue of the charge sheet against the Health Minister was before the High Court, that Advocate General Mr. Subodh Kantak had on 7th May 2009 held a closed door meeting with Old Goa Police Inspector Gurudas Gawade and Public Prosecutor Ms Winnie Coutinho to try and help the accused Mr. Vishwajit Rane on account of his clout as a Minister in the Govt of Goa. I have placed this fact before the Hon. High Court on affidavit. This is a shocking state of affairs, which reiterates the long-echoed views of the Supreme Court as to political interference in the investigation process. If the law of the land can be interpreted in such a shameless manner, to suit a Cabinet Minister, what would be the fate of the common man and what would be the resultant fear of law, amongst the citizens? All these facts will be placed before the Honourable High Court. Aires Rodrigues Ribandar
