Srinagar: The J&K government will file objections to the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) report which stated that lawyers in Kathua did not obstruct justice in the case of rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl.
The Kathua lawyers in their own statement had boasted, and this was pointed out by public prosecutors representing the government in the Supreme Court on Friday, of having prevented the Crime Branch (CB) from filing its chargesheet against the accused rapists and murderers. The Kathua Bar Association had congratulated this obstruction by calling the lawyers’ actions “successful”.
According to a government source, the objections would be filed on the next date of hearing of the case. The government has sought a copy of the BCI report to point out the many “loopholes” in it.
The government source said that the Supreme Court had appointed a five-member BCI team led by former High Court judge Tarun Agarwal to present a factual report on whether the lawyers in Kathua prevented CB officials from filing their chargesheet in court. This team neither met the CB officials concerned with the Kathua case nor any officer of Jammu & Kashmir Police.
Director General of Police SP Vaid confirmed to Kashmir Reader that the BCI team did not approach him.
Similarly, a senior CB officer, requesting anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to media, also said that the BCI team did not meet him.
The BCI team’s not meeting any Crime Branch officer is strange, as it was a CB team led by Senior Superintendent of Police that was prevented from filing the chargesheet by the Kathua lawyers. The JK Police had subsequently filed a case against “advocates” in Kathua for preventing the CB officials from performing their “lawful duties”.
A senior police officer said the police case against Kathua lawyers would be processed and the BCI report would not have any impact on it.
The government affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court a day ago also showed the report of the Principal District and Sessions Judge Kathua which clearly mentioned “40 to 45” lawyers as sloganeering against the CB officials who had entered the court premises to file the chargesheet.
“It was necessary for the (BCI) team to meet the parties concerned. Not meeting the crime branch officials who were prevented from performing their duties is one big loophole,” the source said, adding that the government would raise these issues in the Supreme Court.