State showed "bias" and an absence of "zeal" in persecuting those accused of killing more than 900 people during the Mumbai riots of 1992, says the judge who headed the probe.

At a time when the execution of Yakub Memon, convicted for his role in the 1993 blasts that followed the riots, has sparked a fierce debate around whether justice has been selective and continues to remain elusive for those who were murdered during the '92 riots, Justice BN Srikrishna told NDTV's Barkha Dutt that the state and "those who wielded power" had shown an evident bias in not probing the riot cases with the same energy as they had shown in convicting those responsible for the blasts in which 257 people were killed.

In a lengthy email interview, Justice Srikrishna (who says he never appears on television) said the state had been "remiss" and had opted not to investigate even cases where serious prima facie evidence existed. The Srikrishna report had been particularly critical of the role of the Shiv Sena and Bal Thackeray during the riots describing him as a "virtual General' during the violence. But the findings of his commission of inquiry were never acted on by any government - neither the Congress-NCP on whose watch both the riots and the blasts took place or the subsequent BJP-Shiv Sena coalition.

More than 22 years later only three people have been convicted for the riots in which more than 900 people were killed. By comparison, 100 people have been convicted for their role in the '93 blasts.

Justice SriKrishna said he supported the execution of Memon who he said was given "the fullest opportunity of defence." He only wishes, he told NDTV, that there would one day be justice for 1992 as well.

Whether the Mumbai blast convict Yakub Memon finally walks to the gallows or not, the gnawing question that will continue to stare us in the face is not if he ever participated in the conspiracy and its execution, but if the Indian investigating agencies betrayed him and used his own evidence to hang him.

The moot point is certainly not about law, but about ethics. If the evidence, even voluntarily submitted by him, proves his criminality, he deserves punishment. But if he was duped into a sense of safety, it was unethical because it would have made him complacent and thereby denied himself a fair shot at the legal avenues. If he incriminated himself, believing that the investigators will take care of him, he himself has spoiled his legal chances. This is both a travesty and miscarriage of justice.

ashdoc wrote:

ashdoc wrote: