There cannot be a more pathetic tale of delayed justice than the now almost forgotten countermanding case which has taken over two decades to come up with a judgement from the JMFC court.
The case came to be lodged after polling in the Assembly elections in Curtorim, Velim and Mormugao constituencies was countermanded after Caetano Jackson Fernandes, a candidate who was contesting these seats, died during the process of the polls. In 1989 when it happened it made headlines; but by 2010 it had become irrelevant to the political discourse or public concern: it remained no more than the hearing of a case of a crime and the prosecution of the accused. The case had its twists and turns, with the State of Goa bringing in top apex court lawyers to argue in its favour. In the course of the hearing judges changed with transfers and so did a number of public prosecutors. At the end of it, it is quite remarkable that the JMFC Ms Vandana Tendulkar saw to it that arguments were wound up and we eventually had a verdict. So complicated was the case that baring the accused and the prosecution, few followed it over the course of two decades. And what was the final outcome?
The nine persons accused of hatching a conspiracy to field a sick, elderly candidate in three constituencies hoping that he would die, have been acquitted of all the charges. The accusation was that they made Caetano do it as he was lying on his death bed and could not have filed his nomination on his own. But the prosecution failed to identify which of the nine accused had impersonated him. Even though one of the accused, Freddy Dias, who turned approver, identified one of the accused as the person who had impersonated Caetano, the judge ruled that Freddy was not a reliable witness. Secondly, she pointed out that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge that the accused acted with the intention to countermand the elections. Thirdly, the prosecution failed to bring sufficient evidence on record to prove the motive. This essentially means that the prosecution, even though it had all the time in its hands to collect evidence, failed to do anything, and no wonder it could not prove the basic charges of forgery for the purpose of cheating, impersonation and conspiracy. However, the case did have an interesting fallout. Following this case and the countermanding of elections in other parts of the nation, the Centre amended the law to allow the election process to continue in the event of the death of an independent candidate.
The judgement exposes several weaknesses in the prosecution’s case. Politically, the case is irrelevant. There are no precedents to be created or broken. Of course, the law must take its own course, no matter how long it takes to reach its logical conclusion. Nonetheless, the question staring in the face of the government is what should it do now. Should it pursue the matter in a higher court? Should more time be wasted on this case only to prove a point? The government would do well to study the judgement and ponder over its consequences before taking any further step. After all an appeal in this case will only add to the already over-burdened judiciary.
