The Union law ministrys reported decision to initiate action against a law officer who filed the Centres affidavit in the Ishrat Jahan case reeks of the kind of politics that is irresponsible and has the potential to communalise the UPA governments policy on tackling terrorism. In the Gujarat high court,the Centre had filed an affidavit agreeing with the state police that Ishrat and her three accomplices had links to the Lashkar-e-Toiba. But the case has since acquired political overtones,with Law Minister Moily more or less agreeing with a magistrates report which has since been stayed by the high court claiming that the encounter was staged. Now,even though the home ministry stands by the affidavit,Moilys law ministry has begun action against Assistant Solicitor General P.S. Chamapaneri for failure to apprise the ministry of the contents of the affidavit submitted by the home ministry. This amounts to political opportunism by the Centre,a craven disregard for the sanctity of intelligence inputs. As the Union home secretary has pointed out,the affidavit only stated that the Intelligence Bureau believed that those killed were terror suspects; it had no view on the genuineness of the encounter. But the law ministry has other ideas. By trying to discredit the Centres own affidavit,it risks choosing politics over national security. The practice of killings-for-awards violates the due process that our legal system affords everybody,even those accused of terrorism. If found guilty,the sternest action must be taken against the state police officials involved. But by making this is a Modi versus UPA brawl,sending out conflicting signals,and trying to discredit a neutral input given to the Gujarat state police,the Centre is putting at risk the kind of intelligence sharing that counter-terrorism so badly requires. The flip flops by assorted Congressmen over the Batla House encounter in Delhi in September 2008 had created political confusion,which was only quelled by the Centres more coherent post-26/11 strategy. Now,to have the spectacle of two key ministries in disagreement,with one of them clearly showing that its focus is more political than procedural,against raises disturbing questions.
