Another case was registered at Coimbatore District Court against the arrest, torture and killing of Rajan. It had been transferred there on the request of the accused. There was no role for me or for my advocates in the conduct of this case either. An army of prominent lawyers came to argue the case for the accused, including Mr. Ratna Singh, now the Advocate General of Kerala, for Mr. Jayaram Padikkal. Advocate K. P. Achutha Menon from Calicut was arguing my case for the prosecution. He was eighty years old and obviously weak.
All the important newspapers in the country had deputed their best correspondents to report the proceedings. The reports of Mr. Appukkuttan Vallikkunnu created ripples through out the state.
Justice M. Fakir Mohamed heard the case in the Coimbatore Session’s Court. There were almost a hundred witnesses, among them, almost eighty victims of torture at Kakkayam camp.
The remarkable thing about the prosecution witnesses was that all of them turned hostile. They withdrew the statements they gave to the enquiry officers and deposed before the court that their earlier statements were made under torture, and were not true. No other witness behaved like this.
I was examined for almost two days continuously by prosecutor Mr. Achutha Menon, as well as by the advocates for the accused. I had to be in the witness box for examination by these ten people for almost ten hours, but none of their convoluted questions could weaken me. I thought I would be very scared, but what happened was the other way round. I felt bold somehow. The reason for that might have been that all I was telling was the truth and nothing but the truth. Some advocates tried to confuse me, but they failed. I still remember one thing. I was about to answer a question, and as I was answering, one of the advocates angrily interrupted and told me, as if it was a command, that I must answer in a single word. I told him ‘no’ emphatically and without any embarrassment, leading to some arguments between us. Finally the judge intervened to allow me to say whatever I wanted.
If the defense lawyers tried to examine me like this, the strange method of the prosecutor Mr. Achutha Menon was different. On the last day of cross-examination he asked me just a single question. Even this question had nothing to do with the case: ‘Did you not come along with your lawyer Mr. Ram Kumar, from Ernakulam to Coimbatore, to be the witness in this case?’ I got embarrassed as to what this question had to do with the case. Whether I came with Mr. X or Y had nothing to do with the case. Such an irrelevant question from a famous lawyer in the court made me wonder. ‘Yes,’ I answered, and waited for more questions. But with that question his examination was over. The motive of the authorities in appointing this advocate as prosecutor for such an important case can be assessed by all, but the accumulated shortcomings in the conduct of the case pointed to a conspiracy behind it.
The enquiries against Rajan were conducted fully by the Crime Branch, but the majority of the accused belonged to the local police. The court concluded that only the Crime Branch police were responsible for the crime, namely, Mr. Jayaram Padikkal, Mr. Murali Krishna Das and Mr. Kunji Raman Nambiar. Observing that the charge that the accused persons were responsible for torturing and killing Rajan was not proved beyond doubt, the court exempted them from the charge of murder. They were sentenced to just one year’s simple imprisonment for some minor crime. All three appealed to the Madras High Court. The Advocate General of Madras, Mr. Rajamanikkam, represented them in court. One advocate, Mr. Sankaran, represented my case. Because it was an appeal case, no retrial was necessary. After the arguments and counter-arguments, the High Court acquitted all three.
*********************
Now I have something to say about Mr. Niren Dey, who was Advocate General during the Emergency. There was a story behind his becoming the Advocate General, which is the highest legal advisor to the Government of India, responsible for all the legal actions of the government. Usually advocates take a firm stand on legal issues with the government while Advocate General, but during the Emergency the situation was very different. The government led by Mrs. Indira Gandhi was involved in naked human rights violations, and being Advocate General meant justifying all these. So no senior advocate in the country worth his name was ready to take up the position at that time. Mr. Niren Dey himself firmly rejected the offer made by Mrs. Indira Gandhi to be appointed to the post, but there was heavy pressure on him. His wife was Swedish, and in Sweden. Mrs. Indira Gandhi threatened him that if he refused to take up the post, his wife would be denied permission to enter India. She informed him that if he wanted to spend his old age with his wife, he should accept the post. So with great pain and reluctance he accepted.
Once Mr. Niren Dey made a statement in the Supreme Court, in front of all judges and senior advocates. He said that, ‘Every single policeman has the right to shoot and kill anyone on the road today. Nobody has the right to question.’ Though he made such a statement, it weighed on his mind like a sin. The common person in the country expressed deep anger against this statement, but his real intention was to tell the world how horrible the situation was for the common person in India during the Emergency. Mr. Niren Dey wished to wash the stains of the Emergency from his personality once it was over.
One day Advocate Eeswara Iyer called me over the phone. Mr. Karunakaran’s appeal was ready for hearing in the Supreme Court. Mr. Eeswara Iyer told me that Mr. Niren Dey had volunteered to argue my case in the Supreme Court free of charge. I was shocked. The Niren Dey of the Emergency was still fresh in my mind. But Mr. Eeswara Iyer knew the real Niren Dey, so I decided to entrust the case to him.
*********************
The only way out for me after the Coimbatore and High Court verdicts was to approach the Supreme Court with an appeal. But in my situation it was impossible. I decided not to do anything further and sat back helplessly. It was then that Mr. Mukundan Menon, a human rights activist, approached me. He informed me that one of the senior-most advocates in the Supreme Court, Mr. Tharkunde, had studied my case very carefully and felt that the case had a chance for appeal at the Supreme Court. He said Mr. Tharkunde would appear for me free of charge and that with just Rs. 20,000 the case could be conducted. I informed Mr. Eeswara Iyer and Mr. Ram Kumar about this. Both agreed that had to try, with the help of Mr. Tharkunde. But Rs. 20,000 was a big problem for me. Advocate Eeswara Iyer advised me to approach the Communist Party Of India (Marxist) for financial help. The only leader whom I knew in the party was Mr. Viswanatha Menon. I approached him, and through him the party agreed to help me.
I contacted Mr. Tharkunde. He introduced me to another advocate, Mr. Pareekh. I entrusted the case with Mr. Pareekh, as Advocate on Record. Mr. Tharkunde’s daughter was practicing with Mr. Pareekh, and actually she was the one who looked after the case. Meanwhile she got married and left Delhi, and with that the case came to a standstill.
