A day after a reference to Leo Tolstoy’s famous work “War and Peace” was attributed to him by a section of the media sparked a controversy, the Bombay High Court Judge Justice Sarang Kotwal on Thursday his displeasure over the manner in which the media misinterpreted the questions posed by him to the counsel of an accused in the Bhima-Koregaon-Elgaar Parishad case in the courtroom on Wednesday.
As the daily hearing in bail applications filed by the Bhima Koregaon-Elgaar parishad case began, Dr Yug Mohit Chaudhary, appearing for Sudha Bharadwaj, alluded to reports in the media about the hearing held in the court on Wednesday and said the book seized from Vernon Gonsalves’ home was ‘War and Peace in Junglemahal’ by Biswajit Roy not Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”.
The reports in a section of the media had quoted Justice Kotwal as asking an activist arrested in connection Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad case in the courtroom on Wednesday as to why he had Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace at his home when the book was “about a war in another country”.
Voicing his displeasure over the misrepresentation of questions posed by him to the academic and accused Vernon Gonsalves in the courtroom on Wednesday, Justice Kotwal said, “What was reported was disturbing, it sends a wrong signal. Before that there was reference to other materials. I never turned to War and Peace. What kind of irresponsible reporting is this?. I hope this is clarified. But the damage has already been done”.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Justice had alluded to all the seized material and asked the counsel of the accused, “Nature of the books suggests you are a part of a banned organisation, why did you have these books at home?” Since Biswajit Roy’s “War and Peace in Junglemahal” was not named on Wednesday, those present in the high court had presumed it was Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace. The fact remained the high court had not made reference to any specific book.
Continuing his submissions seeking bail for his client Gonsalves, who has been accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, senior Counsel Mihir Desai told the court that mere possession of books or literature cannot be incriminating. “None of these books seized from my client’s home is banned under Section 95 of CrPC. My client is a writer, journalist. He needs certain books for literary purposes.” Desai argued.
Maintaining that none of the witnesses had spoken against Gonsalves, Desai said that even the “hidden witness” whose statements have been recorded twice, had stated he had never met his client. The other witnesses had also said that they had not met or heard his client Gonsalves.
Desai substantiated his arguments citing several judgements of the Supreme Court, US Supreme Court and the High Court at Bombay, Delhi and Gujarat. He said that on the basis of his arguments, Gonsalves — who had been in jail for more than a year — be granted bail.