The Mumbai police is happy that a Mumbai judge has delivered an unprecedented conviction under the provisions of a draconian law to control ‘organised crime’. But who decides against whom it will be used?

The ways of the law have been known to be strange and convoluted, even prone to unspeakable delays. Even so, the broad expectation certainly is that the interests of justice and fair play do eventually get served. And, that when the long arm of the law does reach out, it spares none in its wake. 

That is when the basis of the laws framed suit the norms of a civilised society and accepted behaviour, where the right of the individual to defend himself against potential misuse and abuse by power and authority by the implementers of the law is non-negotiable. When the protectors of the law are not prone to selective application and pointed amnesia. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

Consider the following. Last Tuesday, on September 5, 2000, a special court appointed under the new anti-terrorist state legislation passed in 1999 – the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 — delivered its first conviction. Special Judge AP Bhangale sentenced three persons, allegedly belonging to the Chhota Shakeel gang; to be hanged to death after he found them guilty of an attempt to kill (on March 4, 1999) former Mumbai mayor, Milind Vaidya a politician belonging to the Shiv Sena. Vaidya himself is guilty of instigating and inciting mobs to burn, loot and kill Muslim shops and homes (another version of organised crime?) during the Bombay riots of 1992-1993. 

Of the remaining five accused, two were sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, one to life while the remaining two were acquitted of all charges for want of sufficient evidence.
Collective fines totalling an unprecedented Rs 101 lakhs have been levied on the six accused, with individual fines ranging from a minimum of Rs. 10 lakh to a maximum of Rs. 25 lakh. A failure to pay the fines will attract jail for three more years. Of the total fine amount, 30 per cent will be paid towards compensation of victims who were killed, 20 per cent will be shared by each of the three injured (including Milind Vaidya) and the remaining amount will go towards defrayal of the expenses of the prosecution. 

Apart from the fact that the MCOCA has been roundly criticised by legal experts and rights’ activists as being “worse than TADA” for its denial of the basic protection of procedural checks and bail available under Indian and international criminal law (see box) when it came into force last year. The implications of the selective use of this law against some criminals while others are allowed to go scot-free is becoming a subject of discussion and serious concern. 

The speed of conviction in this case (just over a year) is being compared to the refusal of the Maharashtra government to punish all those guilty of gross crimes when the metro erupted in unprecedented violence in 1992-1993 (over eight years).

The very same day that the judge delivered his first conviction under the MCOCA, the Maharashtra government had, in a putrid affidavit before the Supreme Court, let it be known that it had no intention of punishing those guilty of crimes, be it policemen or politicians, in December 1992-January 1993. Politicians named by Justice BN Srikrishna in his report directly implicate Milind Vaidya in one of the criminal acts. 

“The fact that only select cases will be booked under MCOCA will ensure speedy trial and fast conviction. We need this to get at the underworld and control organised terrorist gangs,” joint commissioner of police (crime), Mumbai, D Shivanandan told Communalism Combat. A recent recipient of the President’s medal, he is the brain behind the MCOCA). 

The moot question, however, is who will select which cases and what crimes will be recognised as organised crime and assigned for special and speedy investigation under the MCOCA? Will it be the officers of the Mumbai police, a force still under cloud for blatant communal bias during 1992-1993 riots and which has still been unable to bring those guilty of obvious and blatant communal crimes to book?