The Batla House case has got much to answer as it has not satisfied those who still believe that it was a fake encounter. Those who believe that it was not a genuine encounter hold that the discrepancy and the loopholes in the police version have either been ignored or not cross-checked before pronouncing the verdict. People on the other side of the verdict are now preparing to challenge it in the Higher Court. Morale of police and the people is equally important and it must be equally restored and respected. The family of slain inspector must get justice but not at the cost of innocents, is what the community believes.
Shahzad has been convicted for killing Delhi Police Special Cell Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma who had led a police team that raided L-18 flat in the building in the 19 September, 2008 Batla House encounter. Shahzad was said to have fired at the police party while fleeing from the spot. The Muslim community by and large still believes that it was a fake encounter and Muslim leaders have expressed that they will keep on protesting and demanding for and independent probe to ensure that justice is done. Maulana Jalaluddin Umari, Amir JIH, while speaking at the JIH press conference on 27 July, said that when a majority of Muslims doubt that it is not a genuine encounter then why the government is reluctant for an independent inquiry. The government is concerned about the morale of the police but not about the morale of the community. If the community has any doubt, it has got every right in a democratic country to ask for an independent inquiry and the government must agree to it.
Soon after the judgment, JTSA president Manisha Sethi reacted saying that the decision of the court is a huge disappointment for all of us and we will approach the higher court to ensure that justice is done and will try all so that the family members of Shahzad get justice. The JTSA has also questioned the alleged discrepancies in the police theory of shootout through a report titled Encounter at Batla House: Unanswered Questions. JTSA holds that the verdict by a Delhi court in the controversial Balta House encounter case is perverse and mockery of justice and has expressed shock over violation of the guidelines of the criminal jurisprudence in the case. While releasing a report titled, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” on 31 July, in the national capital, Sethi said, prosecution has failed to explain the theory proposed by the Delhi Police, we have fought for five years to reveal the real face of Delhi Police who staged the shootout and arrested innocent Muslim youth.
After the verdict, addressing the media persons, Satish Tamta, lawyer of Shahzad Ahmad, said that the conviction of Shahzad Ahmad was based upon presumptions and assumptions and not on the basis of evidence. He further said that the prosecution was required to prove that the police party was fired upon by the occupants of the Flat No. 108 in L-18, Batla House and in self-defence the police had to fire but none of them was proved in the court beyond reasonable doubt. The family members of Shahzad are not happy with the verdict and have decided to file an appeal in the Supreme Court against the judgment. Sifa Seraj, sister of Shahzad, said that the Batla House encounter was indeed a fake one and all the accused were falsely implicated by the Delhi police, including my brother. She also said that Shahzad is innocent and the family members will fight for justice till the end.
Now, after the Batla House verdict once again the issue of existence of IM has been debated for and against. After the court convicted suspected Indian Mujahideen (IM) member Shahzad Ahmad in the Batla House encounter, Minority Affairs Minister K Rahman Khan has said the Muslim community in general did not believe in the existence of IM. He, however, also clarified that he was only reflecting a feeling among the community. Dr Zafarul Islam Khan, president of AIMMM has often said and written that the outfit named IM does not exist and it could have been created by either IB or ISI.
The Muslim community and leaders have strongly opposed and rejected what Congress leader Shakeel Ahmad has said that the outfit came into existence after the Gujarat riots. JIH General Secretary Nusrat Ali in his letter to Shakeel Ahmed has said that they were surprised to read his statement that Indian Mujahidin is the outcome of the Gujarat riots. The verbal spat between Congress and BJP has harmed the image of the community. The Muslim community, particularly its educated class, feels that no organisation by the name of “Indian Mujahideen” exists in the country. He also said “Some people believe that “Indian Mujahideen” is the creation of the government and its intelligence agencies and they are using it to vilify the image of the Muslims.
Ashish Khetan in his article, “Why Muslims should confront the IM” in The Hindu has written that neither our agencies nor our politicians have had the courage or will to make amends. By mixing fact with fiction, the Indian state has created a situation where we do not know who is guilty and who is innocent. It has created a situation where for some, the Sadhvi Pragyas and Assemanands are innocent while for others, the Atif Ameens and Chhota Sajids are innocent. It has created a situation where the real accused would never have to answer for killing dozens of innocent civilians. On the other hand, those who are completely innocent may be sent to the gallows. This is not merely vote bank politics. It is one of the fiercest assaults on the idea of justice. It is a mockery of our criminal justice system and the rule of law that while innocent Muslims wrongly framed are denied justice, those who lost their near and dear ones in bomb blasts will never get to know the real culprits. It is important that the information available with the investigating agencies about the Indian Mujahideen comes out into the public realm.