The much awaited report filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) before the Supreme Court Thursday this week surprisingly contradicts the affidavit filed by the Hon’ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court, the report of the Principal District and Sessions Judge Kathua and the state government. Unfortunately the five member team of the Bar Council of India has overstepped the points of reference made to it by the Supreme Court of India as it held interaction with the lawyers accused of blocking filing of charge sheets in the Kathua court but not the victim’s family, the counsel for victim’s family, the investigators of the Crime Branch of Jammu & Kashmir police who were restrained from filing charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua and above all the top concerned functionaries of the government particularly Director General Police Dr S P Vaid. So by all standards of understandabilities the conduct of Kathua lawyers in the filing of charge sheet by the Crime Branch of Jammu & Kashmir police has become a matter Bar Council of India V/S Jammu & Kashmir Government, the Hon’ble Jammu & Kashmir High Court and the Principal District and Session Judge Kathua. Thought the points of reference given by Supreme Court of India to five member team of the Bar Council of India themselves point out the facts that investigation into the conduct of Kathua lawyers vis-à-vis filing of charge sheet by the Crime Branch of Jammu & Kashmir Police was the only domain of the Bar Council of India but the endorsement of demand for CBI raised by Hindu Ekta Manch almost an olive branch of BJP and a newly Rasana Citizens Coordination Committee show that the team was guided by the spirit of the demand for CBI inquiry and not by the points of the reference of the Supreme Court .
The controversial report on the conduct of Kathua and Jammu lawyers submitted by the team of the Bar Council of India to the Supreme is by all standards of understandabilities an attempt to further the purposes of polarization in Jammu region and derail the process of fast track trial of the Kathua rape and murder case.
Keeping in view the fact that the points of reference given by the Supreme Court to five member team of the Bar Council of India was to submit a fact finding report on the conduct of lawyers vis-à-vis the filing of charge sheet by the Crime Branch of Jammu & Kashmir police and not to measure the quantum of public support for demand of the transfer of the case to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) it was expected that team would reach out to all concerned but it reached out to the lawyers accused of blocking the filing of charge and not the family of the victims and the authorities who took strong note of the unlawful activities of the Kathua lawyers. Shockingly the team of the Bar Council of India also did not take into consideration the FIR filed by J&K Police in Kathua police station against the lawyers for “restraining” the Crime Branch from filing the chargesheet, “using criminal force upon the police” and “disallowing them from discharging their legitimate duties”. Finally the Bar Council of India (BCI) also did not bother to look into the situation that forced the investigators of the Crime Branch of Jammu & Kashmir Police to file charge sheet at 9 pm at the residence of Chief Judicial Magistrate and the reasons for filing the charge sheet at the residence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kathua at 9 P M . The point of attention for the team of the Bar Council of India could have been also a press release issued by the president of Kathua Bar Association, Kirti Bhushan Mahajan, on April 9 which said “the agitation of the Bar proved successful and the Crime Branch was compelled to go back and the challan couldn’t be presented in the court”. The controversial report on the conduct of Kathua and Jammu lawyers submitted by the team of the Bar Council of India to the Supreme is by all standards of understandabilities an attempt to further the purposes of polarization in Jammu region and derail the process of fast track trial of the Kathua rape and murder case.
