BABARI MASJID

Shahabuddin's Letter to Inderjit Gupta

On Ayodhya Dispute, 2 July, 1996

"I have just seen your statement that the Government would like to resolve the Ayodhya dispute before the Assembly elections are held in Uttar Pradesh. As you are aware, we have reservations on the question of transfer of the title suit from the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court which is now hearing it to the Supreme Court under Article 138(2) of the Constitution.

Even if our reservations are disregarded and the Government go ahead with this proposal, I think that it would be impossible to complete the necessary formalities for the hearing of the title suit by the Supreme Court to commence, far less for it to pronounce a judgement before the President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh comes to an end. Indeed, if the elections are to be held in Uttar Pradesh, the judgement of the Supreme Court will have to be pronounced before the electoral cycle begins. It is, therefore, not clear whether the Government propose to extend the President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh.

I must caution you that there are many pitfalls before the transfer proposal can be affected.

The consent of the Government of Uttar Pradesh while it is under President's Rule may be technically valid but its ethical and political legitimacy will be challenged.

Secondly, the Parliament will take its time to consider such a controversial bill particularly if it includes any provision to abate all pending legal proceedings related to the Babari Masjid, apart from the title suit.

Thirdly, even if the Bill is passed and enacted, its constitutionality may be challenged.

Fourthly, even if the Supreme Court is empowered, it may in its wisdom decide, as a matter of caution and prudence not to venture out on such a mine-field, As you know, the Supreme Court refused to reference under Article 141 and sent the matter back to the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court to decide the question of title.

The proceedings in the Special Bench are at a very advanced stage. I can easily foresee the reluctance of the Supreme Court to try the case in its original jurisdiction when its own capacity to record the evidence, examine and cross-examine the witnesses is so limited.

You have spoken of requesting the Supreme Court to hold day-to-day hearing. I would suggest that the Government should ask the Special Bench to hold day-to- day hearing and offer all possible facilities in this regard. This would be much less time consuming than the course you are considering."

JIH: Naib Amir Syed Yusuf on Supreme Court Proposal

First, howsoever, well-intentioned, it is sure to delay the settlement of the title suit and other related matters. Besides the main title suit pending before the Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow, there are writ petitions and appeals pending before the Supreme Court(SC) (apart from the) two contempt cases are also pending without any rhyme or reason.

The criminal proceeding before the Special Court in Lucknow has not yet moved. It is genuinely feared that all these cases may be abated once Parliament enacts legislation to refer the dispute to the SC under Article 138(2). Again, there is every likelihood of such legislation being challenged... by those not interested in the expeditious disposal of the title suit. Furthermore, who knows which party comes to power in UP after the Assembly elections... during September-October, 1996, and whether it agrees with the proposal?

In view of these intricacies, it would be better to take steps for day-to-day hearing of the title suit by the special bench of the Allahabad High Court and expedite the disposal of all the other relevant cages.

 (Source: The Pioneer, 13 June, 1996)

All India Muslim Personal Law Board:

Working Committee Resolution, 7 July, 1996

We appreciate the concern of Government of India for speedy disposal of the Babari Masjid issue and final disposal of the suits directly by the Supreme Court of India. However, we wish to make its clear that the hearing of the suits in the High Court should not be hampered with and be allowed to continue and request be made for day-to-day hearing of the suits till the suits are taken up for disposal by the Supreme Court under the appropriate provisions of the Constitution.

The proposal in the CMP of the United Front Government to refer the Babari Masjid dispute to the Supreme Court under Article 138(2) of the Constitution does not contain details of the proposed agreement between the State and the Union Governments and of the proposed legislation in terms of Article 138(2). Therefore, the all-India Muslim Personal Law Board feels that this requires a detailed examination and discussion between the Board and the Government of India.

The Board set up a Committee with Y.H. Muchhala, Advocate as the Convener and G.M. Banatwalla, MP, Ebrahim Sulaiman Sait and M. Afzal, ex-MPs, Zafaryab Jeelani, Advocate and Secretaries of the Board Abdul Rahim Quraishi and Maulana Wali Rahmani as Members. The Board authorized the same Committee for negotiations with the Government.