Frontline
December  2000
Ayodhya

Ayodhya in the courts

The criminal cases pertaining to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 have made little progress in the courts

One of the many reasons for the not so cold winter of 2000 can easily be ascribed to Atal Behari Vajpayee for 
 he has single-handedly done what his party and its lunatic fringe could not achieve with all their nefarious means. The mask has shown his true face. While the political ramification of Vajpayee’s well-devised and well-designed statement will be discussed and debated in the coming days, what has gone completely unnoticed for a long time is the legal status of Ayodhya case.

A lot of confusion exists on this issue. While Vajpayee has been claiming that the Supreme Court’s judgement will be implemented in letter and spirit, the fact is that no case exists in the apex court. But more of it later.
Let’s see the legal position chronologically. 

At 6.30 pm on December 6, 1992, two FIRs were filed, called crime number 197 and 198. The first one was against thousands of ‘kar sevaks’ who had congregated in Ayodhya on that fateful day, while the latter one was against eight persons, which included LK Advani, MM Joshi, Uma Bharati, Vinay Katiyar, Vishnu Hari Dalmiya. Forty-nine more FIRs were registered between December 7 and March 14, 1993 by press persons against unknown ‘kar sevaks’.

Meanwhile, case number 198 was handed over to CBCID on December 11. The above eight detained at Mata Tila near Jhansi were released without bail. At this point a special court was constituted. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) came into the picture now. Crime number 197 was handed over to them. By September 1993, the rest of the 48 cases were also given to the CBI. But in August 1993, CBCID filed a chargesheet in case 198 and the special court took cognisance of it.

The CBI after investigation filed a final chargesheet against 40 persons on October 5, 1993 and asked for permission to investigate crime number 198 in which the chargesheet had already been filed by the CBCID. After the permission was granted, CBI filed a common chargesheet in 49 cases, which was a big mistake.

At this point lawyer IB Singh, who was representing the then Faizabad district magistrate RN Srivastava, SSP DB Rai and DIG Uma Shankar Vajpayee said in the special court that separate chargesheets should be filed in all the 49 cases. The legal battle had sharpened by now. Special judicial magistrate committed the case to the designated court. Yet again, the CBI sought permission for investigation which was granted. In fact, they worked fast this time and were asked to file a supplementary chargesheet against nine more persons, consisting of Vijayaraje Scindia, Ramchandra Paramhans, Mahant Netragopal Das and other religious leaders. 

At this juncture, IB Singh argued that the chargesheet and proceedings were not maintainable. Nearly five years had passed by then. On September 9, 1997, special judge JP Srivastava ordered that charges be framed against all the accused persons. But Singh again argued that there is no case against the accused. In December 1997, he filed a revision petition in the Lucknow bench of Allahabad high court challenging the order of the special judge in the case of 33 people.

Although preliminary objection was raised by the CBI regarding the maintainability of revision, the Lucknow bench decided in May 1998 that revision was maintainable. 

Since then arguments have continued in this case which concluded only on November 2, 2000. The judgement is expected any time now. 

Apart from this there is a title suit pending before the full bench of Lucknow high court since 1986. Witnesses are still being examined. The story of how this case came here can be well understood if we get into the saga of the Supreme Court.

There is no case pending in the apex court regarding the temple except for a few contempt cases. Moreover, these are about the demolition of the Babri Masjid and not the construction of Ram temple at the disputed spot. Pending here for long, the Supreme Court’s decision will have no major repercussion on the overall issue. 
A contempt petition was filed by Mohammad Aslam Bhure through his lawyer MM Kashyap. Another petition was also filed by him seeking the apex court’s direction to order reconstruction of the mosque. It was filed eight years ago but even the preliminary hearing has not taken place so far. In fact, the Supreme Court has tactfully remitted all cases relating to the masjid-temple, ownership of land dispute to the Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow bench.

Another place where the Ayodhya dispute is being heard is the Liberhan Commission of Inquiry. Set up within a week of the demolition, the commission is yet to finalise its report. Its brief is to inquire into the events leading to the demolition. 

So far, it has examined most of the officials and political leaders like Mulayam Singh Yadav and Uma Bharati. Yadav’s examination is more or less complete. Bharati has come twice, but after KS Sudarshan’s theory of explosion leading to demolition, she did not appear on December 12. In her two appearances, she has chosen not to answer tricky question. Either she feigns loss of memory, attributing it to an accident she had a few years back, or refuses to answer, point blank. 

The key accused, Kalyan Singh, has not made a single appearance. Instead, he has gone to Delhi high court asking for permission not to appear before the commission. The matter is still pending in the court. Others who have been asked to depose include Murli Manohar Joshi, LK Advani and PV Narasimha Rao. All three have filed applications asking for postponements of date.

On December 12, however, the commission took cognisance of Sudarshan’s statement and has asked him to appear on December 20. Jyoti Basu has also been called since, according to media reports, he had handed over one audio cassette of Kalyan Singh’s speech to Prime Minister Vajpayee.

Nirmala Deshpande, a former MP and two journalists, Ruchira Gupta and Sanjay Kaw, have also been summoned. Ruchira has incurred wrath of ‘kar sevaks’ who badly manhandled her in Ayodhya in 1992. Her appearance, however, looks doubtful as she is in the United States. Kaw, who was working for The Statesman in 1992 had merged with ‘kar sevaks’ in Ayodhya and had filed some telling reports from there. 

The commission is in a tearing hurry to submit its final report by June-end. On present indications, its seems most likely that the Liberhan Commission will indict senior BJP leaders. But that will be only one of the many verdicts that Ayodhya issue awaits. There is little indication as of now about what the different courts will say. 


The case against Advani et al

Excerpts from the September 9, 1997 order of Jagdish 
Prasad Srivastava, additional sessions judge (Ayodhya epi sode) Lucknow, trying the Babri Masjid demolition case: 

From our description it is concluded that in the present case a criminal conspiracy to demolish the disputed structure of Ram Janam Bhoomi/Babri Masjid was hatched by the accused persons in the beginning of 1990 and was completed on 6.12.92. Shri Lal Krishan Advani and others hatched the criminal conspiracy to demolish the disputed premises on different times at different places. 

Accused No. 1 to 30 (including Advani, Joshi and Uma Bharati) committed criminal conspiracy between October 1990 to December 6, 1992 to get the Ayodhya, Varanasi and Mathura mandirs fully liberated. In this it was decided to raze the Babri Masjid to ground and to remove the citation stone fixed at the main gali of the structure by Mir Baqi and this work was to be accomplished by all in a concerted action. 

On 5-12-92  a secret meeting was held at the house of Sh. Vinay Katiyar which was attended by Lal Krishan Advani, Pawan Kumar Pandey, etc. wherein a final decision to demolish the disputed structure was taken. 
That in the furtherance of the abovesaid criminal conspiracy kar seva mobilisation journey was purposely undertaken by Shri LK Advani from Varanasi and Shri Murli Manohar Joshi from Mathura on 1.12.92 which finally culminated at Ayodhya on 5.12.92  and in the course of such journeys, which involved public speeches... Shri Advani vehemently asserted repeatedly that the kar seva to be held from 6.12.92  at Ayodhya would not mean only bhajan and kirtan, but would as well involve construction of Shri Ram Temple. It would be done with bricks and shovels. He further asserted on 2.12.1992  to the Janasatta that the BJP will break the law for the construction of Ram Janam Bhoomi Temple at Ayodhya. 

Accused No. 1 to 38 assembled near Ram Janam Bhoomi/Babri Masjid on 6-12-92 and Lal Krishan Advani categorically said in his public speech, before the demolition of disputed structure that “today is the last day of Kar Seva. Kar Sevaks would perform last Kar Seva”. 

When the demolition of the disputed structure was in progress, he (Advani) also told that the central forces were moving from Faizabad towards Ayodhya, but they were not afraid of it and instructed the public to block the national highway straightaway so that forces do not reach Ram Janam Bhoomi. 

The investigation also disclosed that as and when demolition was in progress, Shri LK Advani in fact advised the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Kalyan Singh, not to tender his resignation to the governor of UP till the demolition of the disputed structure stands completed. 

(Courtesy: Outlook)

[ Subscribe | Contact Us | Archives | Khoj | Aman ]
[ Letter to editor  ]
Copyrights © 2001, Sabrang Communications & Publishing Pvt. Ltd.