On 11 September 2008, the Ansals had to surrender at the Patiala House Courts by 3 pm. We wanted to witness the surrender ourselves. But on reaching the court half an hour early, we were shocked to see the courtroom jam-packed. We thought that the Ansals had already surrendered.
On making inquiries, we were told that they had still not arrived. In fact, the people in the courtroom were none other than their employees, who had come to show solidarity with their employers. We could sense the rage and anger they had towards us. It was with great difficulty that we managed to push our way to the front row of the courtroom.
Finally, when the Ansals arrived and surrendered, they were whisked away through a side door which used to remain locked all the time. Once again a safe exit was provided to the Ansals. The staff of the Ansals surrounded them to protect them from the media glare.
After the Supreme Court cancelled their bail, we attended a hearing of the criminal appeal in the High Court. The legal fraternity had mixed reactions to the judgment. Surprisingly, some lawyers congratulated us, even though they were not acquainted with us, while some were very critical of the judgment.
It was around this time that a lawyer approached us and congratulated us for our achievement, and started talking about Ujjwal. We both looked at each other and wondered how this lady knew him. On seeing us looking perplexed, she explained that she was one of Ujjwal’s teachers at Delhi Public School. She remembered him as a bespectacled boy, intelligent and mischievous, and also recalled that he was a good singer. What surprised us was that she used to be in the same school bus as him and was well aware of all the mischief he used to get up to. It made us proud that he was remembered so fondly by his teacher.
Time and again, people from different spheres of life have asked us how we have been so persistent in pursuing the path of justice for our children. At times, friends and family have cautioned us against letting the legal battle consume our lives completely. They remind us that perhaps we forget that even a victory in court will never bring back our children; so what is the purpose of pursuing these cases so intently?
At other times, lawyers and journalists asked us if we were being vindictive towards the Ansals in particular. They could not fathom how a group of ordinary people could stand against the powerful Ansals and refuse to back off even after a decade of prolonged legal battles.
To all these questions we have a simple answer – if by pursuing the case relentlessly we can ensure that no other family in the future loses their loved ones to man-made disasters that are totally avoidable, our commitment to this legal battle and sacrifice will be duly rewarded. And if our persistence is perceived by some as us being vindictive, then so be it.
A review petition for bail was filed in the Supreme Court by Gopal Ansal, which was dismissed on 23 October 2008.
Subsequently, Sushil Ansal also filed a review petition on 15 January 2009, which was also dismissed.
It was the first time in ten years that the family members of the Ansals attended the court proceedings during the hearing of the appeal in the High Court. They were keen that the proceedings should not be prolonged and instead be concluded in the shortest possible time. They stayed in the court for the entire duration to ensure that their lawyers did not seek any adjournments.
The Ansals’ incarceration had brought about a radical change in the attitude of their counsels too. The counsel for Sushil Ansal did not seek any adjournments and concluded his arguments within four days, displaying an alacrity that had never been witnessed by us during the trial. The rest of the accused also concluded their arguments within sixteen days, the CBI in four days and AVUT in two days. The entire appeal was concluded within twenty-six hearings.
The High Court pronounced its judgment on 19 December 2008, a year after the trial court judgment. The court upheld the conviction of Sushil and Gopal Ansal, the gatekeeper of the cinema, an officer from the DFS and two employees of DVB. However, the managers of the cinema, two MCD officials and one engineer of the DVB were all acquitted.
Though the court held the Ansal brothers responsible for all the deviations and violations in the cinema hall, the High Court reduced their sentence from two years to one year and a fine of Rs 5000. The sentence had been reduced taking into consideration that they were old, educated, had a good social status and no criminal background. If the law of the land is the same for everyone, irrespective of social status or education, why should the above factors be considered for the accused responsible for the deaths of innocent patrons?
The judgment of the High Court was challenged in the Supreme Court by AVUT, the CBI and the Ansals through different appeals and cross-appeals. The matter was to come up before the bench that had cancelled the bail. Three days before the scheduled hearing, the advocate on record for the Ansals wrote a letter to the registrar, seeking transfer of the cases listed before the bench.
He expressed his reservations about the matter being placed before a bench which comprised a judge about whom the senior counsel for Sushil Ansal had written a critical newspaper article. This was nothing but a bench hunting strategy, also known as forum shopping in legal terminology.
If the lawyer felt embarrassed for some reason, the proper course of action was to recuse himself from the case rather than, in effect, asking the judge to do so. But the strategy was successful. The matter was listed in front of another bench. After spending four months and twenty days in jail, bail was granted to the Ansals on 30 January 2009.
After being granted bail, the Ansals stated that they had been targeted for no fault of their own and, in fact, they had suffered due to a misdirected campaign and were being punished for mistakes they had not committed. (Times of India, 24 January 2009 and NDTV, 9 April 2009)
Time and again, during the writing of this book, Shekhar and I have discussed and debated whether we should bare all and make public the names of the people involved in the various activities we have described here. However, we decided against it because we want to tell our story. But we must mention that it is only on the rarest of rare occasions in legal history that a counsel has approached the court to request the recusing of a judge.
What is shocking is that the counsel who chose to do so was thus able not only to request the recusing of a judge, but also subsequently obtain bail for his clients. An ordinary citizen of the country, whether a victim or accused, could not have hired the services of such a counsel and would, under no circumstances, have the benefit of this power nexus, which can manipulate and deflect the arm of justice at will.
Excerpted with permission from Trial by Fire: The Gut-Wrenching Story of the Parents Who Lost their Children to the Uphaar Cinema Fire and Lived to Fight for Justice, Neelam and Shekhar Krishnamoorthy, Penguin Books.