In a span of mere two days, the proceedings continuing for over twenty years took a sharp U-turn. The alleged became innocents and those standing up for the victims are now framed as true evils — all thanks to a sentence from the Supreme Court's observation. This is quite a threatening sign for a society that rejoices in the value of justice. The present turn of events will likely create a deterrence for those with the 'audacity' to question the integrity of topmost functionaries. It also raises pertinent questions regarding the scope of judicial observation and nature of judiciary-executive relations when it comes to delivering justice to the common people. Teesta Setalvad, a human rights activist, got involved in the entire affair after the Gujarat riots broke out in 2002. The state was aflame and victims were numerous. In such a circumstance, the Mumbai-based activist floated a trust to provide legal aid to the victims. One among the cases was that of Zakia Jafri whose husband — an influential Congress MP — was brutally dragged and killed. What followed was a 20-year-long combined fight of Zakia Jafri and Teesta's trust. The fight came to a tragic end, at least from the perspective of Zakia and Teesta, on Friday when the Supreme Court upheld SIT's clean chit to the then Gujarat CM. While all this is digestible, the Supreme Court's observation that "all those involved in such abuse of process, need to be in the dock" is highly debatable and probably beyond the usual legal ambit of the court. The judgement in the case ought to have been scripted on its merit, and not on extraneous observations. Furthermore, the Gujarat police, almost in sync, arrested Teesta and two others after an FIR was filed on the basis of the Supreme Court's observation. Narrowly sandwiched between the actions of the two wings of the government was the question of justice and injustice. And, in between, was another major incident where the Union Home Minister clubbed Teesta's NGO and the UPA government together — alleging that both came in confluence to 'tarnish the image' of the Indian PM. What is most disturbing in the entire scheme of things is the undermining of the struggle of real victims, Zakia Jafri and many others like her. After losing her husband, Zakia braved an onerous fight against the topmost officials of the state who, at least, had failed to prevent or control the riots back in 2002. By outrightly saying that "Zakia Jafri used to work at someone else's insistence", the state machinery has insulted the efforts of a woman who lost her husband in the 2002 Gujarat riots. Also, by framing Teesta Setalvad as a conspirator manipulating the victims, the state has sent a clear signal that human rights activists need to be very careful with the causes they take. This is in fact undoing of a great amount of credibility that human rights activists have earned over decades for taking and promoting the cases of least capable victims against strongest offenders. There is no dearth of such cases. In certain instances, the 'pot' needs to be kept boiling, as the condition of the Indian justice system is hardly a mystery. We have countless examples where sensitive cases take years and decades to get resolved. If the pot is allowed to cool down, the meal may never be cooked — leaving those hungry for justice starving forever! In any investigation, the evidence offered by one party in the court is bound to be proved insufficient. Now where does the Supreme Court draw a line before deciding who should be put in dock, and who doesn't? Will there be an assessment after each case, or the words of some minister will be heeded to? It seems quite illogical that in the course of relieving an accused due to inadequate or inappropriate evidence, the accuser must be framed as victim. What has followed the arrest is even more disturbing. National spokespersons of the BJP appear to take the baton much ahead from where the Union Home Minister left it. Journalists and opposition leaders are named for 'tarnishing the image' of the PM. One is forced to hope that this ruckus doesn't provide a ground for further arrests. If there are wrongdoers, detailed investigations must be carried out, and action must be taken. The Indian justice system has a well-laid-out framework to determine who is guilty and who is innocent. It needs to be evolved, not bypassed.