As Rajan’s case continued, it was discussed widely, becoming a focal point for those struggling after the Emergency. As the case progressed, those who had supported the Emergency became more and more scared. The case was going against their expectations, so they started making moves against it. The Malayala Manorama newspaper supported them.
Four days after the case was filed, Malayala Manorama published a slanderous editorial against Rajan. It pained me so much that I wrote a reply, but it was not published. I decided that I had to put the record straight, and the next day another newspaper, Desabhimani, carried my reply.
Those persons embarrassed by Rajan’s case went on to plan other ways to scuttle it. I am sorry to say that their methods were unethical and immoral. All the more so, given that the masterminds were prominent political and social personalities in the state.
There was a satirical magazine titled Asadhu published in Ernakulam those days. Mr. Jesudas, one of the foremost cartoonists in Kerala, was its editor, and the day after news of the habeas corpus writ broke, he wrote an article praising me and criticising those who tortured Rajan. But after another two days he wrote a slanderous article to the effect that Rajan hated me because of some alleged immoral activities. This article pained me deeply, and I took it to Advocate Eeswara Iyer. He too had read it, and was waiting for me, sure that I would reach him once I saw the article. I cried in front of him, and asked him to take this case also to the court. He said it would not serve any purpose to do so. Unconvinced and disappointed I went to Advocate Ram Kumar. He agreed with Mr. Eeswara Iyer, and consoled me. I left him silently.
Two newspapers of the time owned by two prominent political parties’the Congress mouthpiece Veekshanam and Communist Party of India’s Janayugam’reprinted the article on their editorial pages. I never thought that prominent newspapers could lower their moral standards to that extent.
What surprised me most was Mr. Jesudas’ attitude. I never thought him to be the spokesperson of any political party; nor did I think he could discredit himself so much. The way he changed his attitude within two days was amazing. I have no complaint about him not revealing the source of his information, but he should have revealed his partiality. He would have lost nothing by it, and in fact would have helped to clean the dirty political environment in the state.
As the trial progressed, some wellwishers suggested that Advocate Ram Kumar and myself keep away from Ernakulam for a few days. We did so for two days. Many witnesses appearing in court received threatening letters, but none took them seriously.
****************
I fought eight cases in different courts over Rajan’s disappearance. Though I was not familiar with the courts and their proceedings, there were no flaws in the conduct of these cases. It was not because of my efficiency, but due to my lawyers and the inherent honesty of the case itself that all of them succeeded. I entrusted everything to Advocates Eeswara Iyer and Ram Kumar. I trusted their efficiency and honesty. I don’t know how to thank them for this.
I have described how I found the witnesses for the case, and also how the habeas corpus writ was filed. Till then I was under the impression that the High Court or upper courts would not summon the witnesses and that their affidavits would be accepted as proof. So I had assured these witnesses that they wouldn’t have to appear before the court. But at the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Eeswara Iyer declared that we were ready to present all our witnesses in court and that they could be cross-examined. This statement surprised the other advocates. Such a thing had not happened before in the history of the High Court. But Mr. Eeswara Iyer argued that this had happened in other courts in the country and also in the Privy Council in England. The pleader for the Government of Kerala, Advocate General Mr. T. C. N. Menon, had no counter arguments, so the two Divisional Bench judges hearing the case, Justice Potty and Justice Khalid, agreed and ordered accordingly.
Everybody was happy about the court order, but it embarrassed me a bit as I had not told the witnesses that they would have to come all the way to Ernakulam and appear before the High Court. I was worried about their reactions, as I would have to request them to appear. But my fear was unfounded. Everyone expressed readiness to come. The same day I sent my brother Madhavan and his friend Mr. Rama Varier to Calicut to get the witnesses. It was then that I came to know of secret movements by the police against the case. I informed my friends in Calicut, and they remained alert. I was worried until my brother and his friend returned with the witnesses, but things moved so well that all the witnesses, including the principal of the Engineering College, Mr. Vahabudeen, appeared before the court in time.
The respondents to the case consisted of Home Minister Mr. Karunakaran, Home Secretary Mr. Narayana Swamy, Inspector General of Police Mr. V. N. Rajan, Deputy Inspector General of Police Mr. Jayaram Padikkal, and Calicut Superintendent of Police Mr. Lakshmana. All of them submitted separate affidavits arguing that Rajan was never arrested and that they had never even seen him.
The court gave its verdict on April 13. The judges concluded that Rajan was arrested by the police and tortured at Kakkayam camp. They ordered the authorities to produce Rajan by May 22. The verdict created a furore. The respondents got scared, and filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice P. K. Goswamy and Justice V. C. Tulsapulkar heard the case in the Supreme Court. Mr. Niren Dey, who was the Advocate General during the Emergency, and Advocate Ram Kumar appeared for me. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court verdict. I had also submitted a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that the accused had submitted false affidavits in the High Court. The Supreme Court found the affidavits of the accused false and likewise directed the police and government to produce Rajan in court. By that time Mr. Karunakaran was Chief Minister of Kerala. After the Supreme Court verdict he was forced to resign, sending ripples through national politics. Rajan’s case became a topic of discussion across the country.
The Government of Kerala ordered an enquiry on the finding of the High Court that Rajan was arrested and tortured at Kakkayam camp. It submitted before the Supreme Court that this enquiry had found that Rajan was arrested and tortured at Kakkayam camp. The High Court then ordered that the accused police be prosecuted, and action taken against all accused for submitting false affidavits.
Thus there arose two cases. One was the prosecution case against the accused police. The other was the case against all accused for submitting false affidavits. Because these were criminal cases, the Government Pleader was to conduct them. As I was sure that the Government Pleader conducting the cases would not obtain justice, I submitted a petition to then Chief Minister Mr. A. K. Antony seeking permission to conduct the cases with advocates of my choice. I also informed the Chief Minister that I would meet all expenses in conducting the cases. But he refused me permission, thereby proving that my fear was not baseless.
