From the slums of Govandi to become a high profile advocate, Shahid Azmi had come a long way. One of the few lawyers who could empathise with the accused, particularly, those labelled "anti-nationals", the soft-spoken Shahid was often reluctant to charge legal fees. "They were all victims of the system," he often reasoned.
Thirty-two-year-old Azmi, who was the defence lawyer for 26/11 accused Faheem Ansari, was involved in a number of contentious cases that pitted him against the state and the police. In his brief but upcoming career, Azmi has represented those accused in the 26/11 attack, the train blasts in Mumbai, Malegaon blasts, among others.
Three men had entered Azmi's office in Kurla on February 11 on the pretext of meeting him and two of them fired at him from point blank range.
“This can't be an ordinary murder. Azmi did not have enmity with anyone,” said P. Sebastian, human rights lawyer. Sebatian said there was no reason why the underworld would want to eliminate him. “He didn't come in their way. They would not get involved. It is a way to silence people who fight for justice,” he added.
Mostly he took cases of innocent Muslims who were harassed and then arrested and tortured by the police. In the case of the fake encounters and murder of Ishrat Jehan he played a pivotal role to get justice to the bereaved family.
His successful pleading in the Ghatkopar blasts case of 2002 led to the abrogation of POTA. Of the 18 charged he got nine discharged. Police inspector Sachin Vaze killed Khwaja Yunus and disposed off the body. The remaining eight were acquitted by the POTA special court. Apparently free from narrow sectarianism his work and cause irked the Hindutva groups.
Azmi got the three big trials of 2006 — the July 11 Mumbai train blasts, the Malegaon blasts, and the Aurangabad arms haul — stayed by challenging the use of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act. “MCOCA is only applicable in cases of organised crime, not terror,” he said. He argued that section 2(1)(e) of the MCOCA, which includes “promoting insurgency”, was unconstitutional.
The catch was that if use of the law were to be struck down, the cases would fall flat as the confessions of the accused were only admissible as evidence under MCOCA. The High Court rejected Azmi's application, but Supreme Court stayed the trials in February 2008.
Similarly his argument that MOCOCA can be applied in cases of organized crimes but not terror ultimately became instrumental in Supreme Court staying the three cases of 2006: 11/7 Mumbai serial blasts in locals, Malegaon bomb blasts, and the Aurangabad arms haul. The section 2 (1)(e) of MOCOCA focuses on "causing insurgency" could not be justified just on the basis of confession unless corroborated by circumstantial and hard evidence. It was a moment for reforming the harsh laws.
Shahid’s was successful in preventing the screening of the film Black Friday in order not to prejudice the mind of the public in the 1993 trial. This was also a welcome move in the judiciary system. In the 11/7 case, Azmi filed a petition in the high court in July 2008 alleging torture of the accused in Arthur Road jail. The High Court ordered an inquiry which found the allegations to be true.
Azmi, who lost his father when he was six, completed his matriculation in 1992. He paid for his education by working at a zari workshop. He had witnessed the alleged atrocities on Muslims during the 1993 Mumbai riots. This forced him to quit studies and he decided to rebel against the system.
A fearless lawyer, he refused to erase his past. For, it was instrumental in shaping his life, step by step. Scarred by his past, he decided to join the system to beat the system and reform it in his own capacity.
The young lawyer, who grew up in a slum, had stood out among India's legal fraternity. Aged 15, he was arrested for allegedly plotting to kill a right-wing Hindu leader in the wake of Hindu-Muslim riots in Mumbai.
He was found guilty of attending terrorist training camps in Kashmir and spent seven years in jail – time he used to study. Before being acquitted by the Supreme Court he had shared a cell with Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Maulana Masood Azhar – two of the three terrorists who were released in exchange for hostages when an Indian Airlines flight was hijacked en route from Kathmandu to Delhi in 1999.
He was lodged in Tihar jail. He was released on July 7, 1999. During his years in jail Azmi met one person who, he later said, changed the course of his life – Dr. Dineshchandra Saxena. Saxena was arrested for contempt of the Supreme Court.
A lawyer must be people's lawyer, is what Saxena used to tell Azmi and that is something Azmi remembered and followed religiously. In jail, Azmi completed his graduation and acquired a diploma in creative writing and a post-graduate diploma in journalism and mass communications.
After his release he decided to acquire a degree in law. He was an avid reader and writer. He wrote extensively on legal issues and contemporary politics for various publications.
Kartikeya, a court reporter for The Times of India, who knew Azmi well, said: "He was a success story – a terror suspect who had become a respected lawyer. He'd become a hero among Muslims for speaking out against atrocities against the community. His murder is a huge shock."
Speaking before his death, Mr Azmi said: "I had seen policemen killing people from my community. I have witnessed cold-blooded murders. This enraged me and I joined the resistance."
Lawyers, even those who worked closely with Azmi, are at a loss over why a hit was ordered on one of their own. “He was soft-spoken and friendly. His murder is every unfortunate,'' said Aabad Ponda, a defence lawyer.
Shahid Azmi often joked that he would be felled by bullets. And death, ironically, came exactly the way he had predicted — while sitting in the same chair where he often laughed off his premonition. He would shrug, saying, "I've died a hundred times and if death did come knocking, I would look it in the eye.”
