Geelani's case

Published : Dec 06, 2002 00:00 IST

The Delhi University professor's arrest in connection with the December 13 attack on Parliament House was based on intercepts of a call from his mobile phone, which the Delhi High Court has ruled as "inadmissible in evidence".

A HANDFUL of lawyers, academics and human rights activists have taken up the task of defending Syed Abdul Rehman Geelani, accused in the December 13, 2001, attack on Parliament House. They have come together on a citizens' platform called the All India Defence Committee (AIDC), under the chairmanship of eminent social scientist Rajni Kothari. The case assumes importance because of its tenuous nature and the fact that the trial is among the first in Delhi under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

Geelani, a professor at Delhi University, has been in the Tihar jail for the past 11 months. Confined to his cell, he is trying to continue with his doctoral study. In an open letter, the Professor of Arabic in the Zakir Hussain (Evening) College has called for a "rational and logical perspective to the sheer guiles of propaganda launched by the present government". Geelani came to Delhi in 1991 and took his master's degree in Arabic in 1993 and subsequently his M.Phil. He has been a permanent lecturer in the Zakir Hussain College since September 1998.

Geelani's lawyers contend that there are inconsistencies in the version of the Delhi Police on his arrest and the manner in which evidence was collected against him. The whole process was marked by shortcuts, they said. The media trial that followed, feeding on the material handed by the police, made matters worse.

While Geelani was arrested on December 14, 2001, his formal arrest was shown to have been made on December 15. His friends point out that records of the calls on Geelani's mobile phone end on December 14. After this there was no incoming or outgoing call recorded, making them conclude that Geelani was taken into custody by the police, and his mobile phone seized, on December 14. Geelani was arrested when he was on his way to Friday prayers. The police took away his mobile phone, a hearing aid he had purchased for his mother, and the cash that he had with him. His friends say the police took him to a farm house and threatened him. In the meantime, his family, including his wife and two children, was kept under illegal confinement. Although Geelani did not make any confession, reports in the media claimed that he had acquired Rs.22 lakhs by helping in terrorist activities. Said his lawyer N.D. Pancholi: "The truth is that Geelani lived in a one-bedroom rented house and no money was confiscated from his house." The chargesheet filed by the police revealed that no arms, ammunition or any incriminating evidence was found in his house.

On October 30, a Delhi High Court ruling vindicated the stand of the human rights activists supporting Geelani. The police had been relying on an intercepted conversation to prove the charges of Geelani's involvement in terrorist activity. The two-and-a-half-minute conversation in Kashmiri, between Geelani and his stepbrother in Srinagar, was intercepted from Geelani's mobile on December 14, 2001. The Delhi High Court said the telephonic conversation was "inadmissible in evidence".

Said human rights activist Nandita Haksar: "In their hurry to make a case against Geelani the police used the services of Rashid, a fruit vendor, who heard it two or three times and translated it. Others who heard it have accepted that it is very unclear."

The text of this conversation transcribed by the AIDC had the two exchanging pleasantries, besides discussing the college syllabus of Geelani's brother. Throughout the conversation, Geelani kept on telling his brother to end the call as the charge rate was very high. Film-maker Sanjay Kak and trade union leader Sampath Prakash, who have also transcribed and translated this conversation, say it does not prove anything incriminatory against Geelani. Their conclusions are completely different from those of the police.

Geelani's lawyers argued, first in the sessions court and then in the High Court, that the conversation had been intercepted without following the rules under POTA. Under Section 45 of POTA, intercepts of telephonic conversations are not admissible as evidence during trial unless the accused is furnished a copy of the order of the competent authority along with a copy of the application authorising the interception. In Geelani's case, the court, while ruling that the intercepts were not admissible under POTA, left open the question of the intercepts being admissible under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Amendments to the Act made in 1999, in pursuance of a Supreme Court judgment, forbid the police to intercept any telephone call without the authorisation of the Union Home Secretary. The authorisation letters the police submitted were dated December 31 and January 19. Said Pancholi: "The police have not even followed the Indian Telegraph Act provisions. Our next step will be to prove this before the court."

In its judgment, the High Court held that procedural correctness was required in all legal matters. It was even more important in the application of legislation such as POTA.

In its charge-sheet, the police claim that after investigations they found that Geelani "conspired" with the deceased terrorists who "threatened the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India, to strike terror in the people". The charge-sheet says that Geelani is a member of the terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed. It says that during interrogation Geelani accepted that he, along with Mohammed Afsal and Shaukat Hussain, was involved in the conspiracy to attack Parliament House. Geelani also accepted that meetings were held in the house of Shaukat and that in these meetings the deceased terrorists and Shaukat and Afsal used to be present. The police have collected statements of the landlords of both Shaukat and Geelani, in which they have identified the members at these meetings. Geelani's landlord identified Shaukat and Afsal and said they used to visit Geelani frequently.

After going through the records of the mobile phones of the dead terrorists, the police found that they were in contact with Mohammed Afsal, who, in turn, was in contact with Geelani on his mobile number 9810081228. In his confession, Afsal accepted that he had links with Tariq Ahmed, a proclaimed offender. Ahmed is alleged to be a close associate of JeM chief Maulana Masood Azhar. The police say that after the attack on Parliament House Mohammed Afsal and Shaukat Hussain fled to Srinagar. They were in regular touch with Geelani for information on developments in Delhi. The charge-sheet also cites Geelani's conversation with his brother, which took place on December 14. It says that in this conversation Geelani, speaking in Kashmiri, supported the attack on Parliament House.

WHY has Geelani been targeted by the police? Geelani's mobile phone is on the billing system of payment, which gives a minimum level of legitimacy to the case built by the police. The police, relying heavily on mobile phone numbers, have drawn up a case of conspiracy against Geelani. Said Sanjay Singh, Geelani's friend and a lecturer in Shradhanand College: "The simple fact that he had a phone that was in his name and address has become the bane of his life. If the police were to make out a case of conspiracy on the basis of one mobile phone number leading to links with other mobile phone numbers and conspirators, then Geelani was needed in it."

The police found two telephone numbers from the fake identity cards of five terrorists involved in the December 13 attack on Parliament House. These numbers belonged to Mohammed Afsal and Shaukat Husain. Both had registered their mobile phones using fake names and addresses. The SIM cards of the mobile phones of these two accused had in them the number that was traced to Geelani; it was the only mobile phone number registered under a genuine permanent address and name.

Geelani has said that he knew Afsal and Shaukat only as acquaintances. He said that on the day of the attack Shaukat did call him, but nothing of significance was discussed.

Four persons, Mohammed Afsal, Shaukat Hussain Guru, his wife Afsan Guru, and Geelani, have been arrested in connection with the December 13 attack. While five of the perpetrators died in the attack, three others - Maulana Masood Azhar, Ghazi Baba alias Abu Jehadi and Tariq Ahmed - are beyond the reach of the law.

Said Nandita Haksar: "The prosecution's case against Geelani is questionable as even Afsal did not name him as a co-conspirator in the televised interview which was recorded by a prominent Hindi news channel."

At present the arguments of the case are being heard. The trial has been going on at breakneck speed. Around 80 witnesses have been presented by the prosecution in a period of two months.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment