"We are dismayed as Sh Dilip Singh was extremely active in 1987 with the pro-sati lobby," says the letter. "When the lawyers for women's groups started presenting their case (in court, on September 15, 1987), there was a reaction from the people sitting in the court room and all through outside in the corridor there was shouting of slogans like 'Roop Kanwar devi hai', 'Roop Kanwar ki jai jaikaar'..... The young lawyer Dilip Singh also rose from his seat and interrupted the proceedings. He, along with many others who were not official lawyers for the pro-sati group, kept saying that 'we will not allow the passing of such orders', 'don't pass orders which are unacceptable for our community', 'do not pass orders which are impossible to execute'.... Dilip Singh was also seen marching in pro-sati processions which were like a daily event in that period."
"If the Rajasthan High Court has judges with a pro-sati mindset, then how can we expect justice for women? We demand that the appointment of Dilip Singh as a judge be stopped," adds the letter.
Says Kavita Srivastav, a member of the state PUCL: "It is really worrying that forces that wish to perpetuate the ideology of sati are being affirmed and legitimised by the state. The chunri mahotsav (which was to raise money for a sati temple) was a programme in the commodification of sati, and Dilip Singh was there, up front, building up a case which was pro-sati, patently glorifying and defending an act which was murder." Recalls Prem Krishan Sharma, senior advocate and a member of the state PUCL, who witnessed the proceedings 17 years ago: "I remember him loudly defending the Rajput community. He was not appointed by anybody as far as I know, but merely put up a defence as he was a Rajput by caste." Justice Rathore himself refused to comment on the issue of his appointment. "As a judge, I am not supposed to speak to the media," he said.
Says Sunita Satyarthi, the lawyer who filed the application for the ban on the ceremony in 1987 and who is now a member of the state women's commission: "He was not engaged by anyone, he was defending his own community, and arguing in favour of the chunri ceremony which was glorification of murder." Adds Ladkumari Jain of the Rajasthan University Women's Association (RUWA), "He called up my husband and warned him about the consequences of the writ. Bhabhi ko mana kijiye (Please tell her not to do this)," he said.
While witnesses explicitly described Rathore's conduct as being "pro-sati", all of them also said that they rated him very high as a lawyer". This man is honest and good, and has fought for trade union workers all his life, but is traditional in his views," says an advocate who has known him for many years."His pro-sati stance 17 years ago had nothing to do with him being a lawyer, it was just a matter of belief."
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan questions Rathore's appointment on two counts. Says he, "Any judge professing an ideology contrary to the principles of the Constitution must not be appointed, because the primary duty of a judge is to uphold constitutional principles and ensure all institutions of governance function in accordance with those principles. Anybody whose professional ideology is one which negates Article 15 of the Constitution (the right to equality of sexes), in this case sati, is not expected to do that. Secondly, it raises the issue of appointment of judges, which is now ad hoc and non-transparent. There is no process by which judges' ideology, antecedents or track record is examined or investigated. If a judge has defended sati, a fundamental social evil, it is a very serious matter."
Abhishek Singhvi, advocate and Congress politician, admits to nuances. "If a lawyer has represented a cause as a lawyer in his professional capacity, there is no reason to assume he believes in the cause or supports it. Such logic extended unreasonably would prevent the availability of defence counsel to alleged child rapists and murderers. However in the course of his professional duty, if a lawyer believes in or takes up a perverse cause, he can be judged harshly by society," he says. Lawyer Indira Jaisingh ties Rathore's appointment to the politicisation of the judiciary. "Those who identify with the ideology of parties like the bjp in bjp-ruled states are rewarded with posts. Even in Gujarat, public prosecutors who investigated riot cases were VHP members, which is a serious conflict-of-interest situation."
Activists are also highlighting the case of Rajendra Singh Rathore, who is a pwd minister in the Vasundhararaje government, and of Pratap Singh Khachariawas, Vice-President Bhairon Singh Shekhawat's nephew, who fought the Lok Sabha elections this year on a Congress ticket after being denied a ticket by the bjp. This, despite both being accused in cases of sati glorification 17 years ago.
Both were acquitted by the special sati court in January this year. Soon after, MAVJA filed a petition in the Rajasthan High Court challenging the judgement of the lower court and pointed out that the state government should have appealed against it. In early August, the high court issued a notice against the state government and the 11 accused. But today both want to distance themselves from the issue. Says Rajendra Singh: "I never supported sati. I took part in rallies to protest police atrocities against Rajputs following the incident in Deorala." Khachariawas, who was in high school in 1987, echoes his former party colleague: "Yes, I defended the right of the Rajputs to pursue their religious beliefs, but that does not mean I believed in sati."
The state government too has made it clear that it has no intention of moving on this issue. Asked about it, this is what chief minister Vasundhararaje had to say to Outlook: "Why should I do anything? I am going to focus on governance."
