Niranjan flays Kalinga Nagar probe report, seeks debate in House
Bhubaneswar: Senior Congress leader Niranjan Patnaik on Friday rejected the state cabinet’s decision accepting a “sterile” Kalinga Nagar Commission report and demanded immediate tabling of the same in the state Assembly for a discussion.
“Naveen babu should show moral courage to let his MLAs express their views on the findings of the Judicial Commission un-encumbered by party whip,” Niranjan said in a press release.
The commission was entrusted with the task of establishing liabilities for the death of 12 persons for death in police firing on 2 January, 2006. But, it has reportedly exonerated all authorities of any liability. Niranjan said it was a “carefully orchestrated white-wash”.
“The Judicial Commission is a litigation process that is better managed by companies and the officialdom. The adivasis must have been unable to engage proper legal counsel, file affidavits on time and depose before the commission. The state machinery would have produced elaborate records and would have managed the litigation in their favour. It is unlikely that in such an adversarial judicial process the poor adivasis will ever get justice,” he contended.
“In a welfare state protecting the weak and the poor is the responsibility of the government. But, if the government conspires to deny justice and wants the adivasis to win a complex litigation, never will the weak get justice,” he alleged.
“Unsurprisingly, the adivasis failed to prove the injustice and even could not establish that because of an act of stupidity palms were chopped off for identifying the dead during autopsy while all that was required was photography and finger prints and yet the Commission strangely found nothing wrong,” he added.
“The decision of the State Cabinet is an act of utter insensitivity that must be rejected by all civilized opinions, political parties and civil society. The problem is not with the retired High Court judge, but the litigation process, where he is constrained to give findings on the basis of evidence presented before him,” he opined, adding, “In fact, the idea of initiating a judicial enquiry to give justice to poor adivasis must generally be opposed, because they are not likely to be able to manage such an adversarial, complex and time-consuming litigation in their favour. The system is fundamentally flawed and weighed against the weak.”