BABARI MASJID

People's Movement for Secularism Demands Expeditions

Adjudication, Prosecution of the Culprits

Statement, New Delhi, 3 July, 1996

Under the P V. Narasimha Rao-led Congress government the Sangh Parivar demolished the Babari Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. For more than 48 hours after the BJP's supporter terrorized the town, killing 14 Muslims, destroying 267 houses, damaging 19 Mazars/Madrasas and forcing 4500 Muslims to flee. Under public pressure, the Government of India set up a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice Liberians, a sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The CBI was asked to investigate and file charges against those responsible for the Babari Masjid's demolition and the police in various States was expected to begin criminal prosecution against those who were responsible for the killing, looting and burning which took place after December 6, 1992. Despite the passage of three-and-a- half years not much is known about the fate and progress of the various cases and inquiries instituted by the Government of India.

CBI Case

The case was taken up for investigation on December 13, 1992. On October 5, 1993 the CBI filed chargesheets before the Special Magistrate in Lucknow against 40 persons (supplementary charges filed against nine more persons on January 11, 1996) in cases involving criminal conspiracy (Section 120 B of Cr. P.C.) and intentional destruction and defilement of a place of worship (Section 295 of IPC), with additional charges of criminal trespass, intimidation of public servants, etc. The CBI claimed that they examined 850 witnesses and seized 705 documents and 112 articles.

Bailable warrants were issued against the accused who, through a battery of lawyers, contested the charges by filing more than hundred interlocutory applications before the magistrate. When their application was turned down, they went to the High Court where too their motion failed. However, they managed to gain time. The case was committed to the sessions court only on August 27,1994.

Normally, once a case is committed to the sessions court, the judge listens to the arguments and then frames charges. In this particular case, five sittings had taken place before the special sessions court judge Vimal Kishore. One more sitting was needed but before that could happen and charges could be framed the judge was transferred on December 4, 1995... Each time a new judge takes over, arguments have to be heard afresh. other words, according to the CB1, one year’s work was. lost. Since December 1995 no new judge has been appointed and that is where the case stands.

Liberhan’s Commission

Appointed in December 1992, it took more than a year for the Commission to begin public hearings. For almost a year, the Commission faced logistic problems, with the judge from Chandigarh, the headquarters of the Commission in Delhi, and most of the witnesses in UP. In January 1994, the Union Home Ministry proposed dissolving it. It was only then that the Commission. actually, started its work.

As for the stay order issued by Justice Wadhwa of Delhi High Court on August 23, 1995 against notices issued on August 4, 1995 by the Commission to 41 persons and five organizations indicted by the Commission, we were told the matter is sub judice.

The Commission summoned and examined $3 witnesses. On the basis of this, they indicted and served notices on 41 persons and five organizations, giving them eight weeks to appear before the Commission. Some of the persons served these notices, including the former Home Secretary of UP and the DGP of UP, went to the Delhi High Court on August 23, 1995 praying that the Court stay the proceedings of the Commission. A two-, member bench of the Delhi High Court then heard arguments which ended on November 22, 1995, but the judgement has not been delivered. Thus, the Commission's work has been stalled Justice Liberhan having been appointed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court in February 1987, is one of the Senior most judges in reckoning for the post of the Chief Justice. Once that happens, the Commission is all likelihood will formally become non-functional.

UP Police

More than 60 FIRs were registered before Faizabad Kotwali, Ayodhya Kotwali and Thana Ramjanmabhoomi. A separate cell headed by Poornima Singh, IPS investigated the assault on media person and registered FIRS. There has been no progress in this case.

Ayodhya Cell in the Union Home Ministry

The Home Ministry's Ayodhya cell is to coordinate all the civil and criminal cases and is privy to all the decisions and information about progress or non-progress of the cases. It was headed by a Special Secretary, SD Trivedi who retired on April 30. His replacement has not. been announced.

 Supreme Court

The highest court had issued a sue moto contempt notice on December 7, 1992 on BJP leader Kalyan Singh.

Tourism Secretary Alok Sinha, District Magistrate R.N. Srivastava, Additional District Magistrate, U.C. Tewari and SSP Faizabad D.B. Rai, who had filed sworn affidavits before the Court. There has been no progress.

In sum, four things stand out about the legal proceedings. First despite the extraordinary nature of the erine which resulted in massive loss of lives and property and brought the country to the brink of a civil war, this case is being treated casually. Judges are not interested in being appointed to the special session court. The Allahabad High Court in particular and the Central Government in general (Since UP is under President's Rule) have made no effort to find someone whose tenure would not be short. In fact in the past seven months, they have found no replacement for Judge Vimal Kishore who was transferred on December 4, 1995.

Secondly, unlike other cases involving terrorists, the Sangh Parivar has been treated with kid gloves. The Government of India's agencies have used TADA against. even petty criminals. In contrast, this crime has been treated differently. CBI officials say that the reason was because emotions were running high and criminals admitted their role, declaring it to be their religious duty. The GOI must be condemned for indulgence carried too far.

Thirdly, as the CBI case shows it is not draconian laws that are required to deal with crimes of this type. Provisions under CR PC or IPC suffice. But this case shows how these procedures are subverted from within by the dillydallying of the government and especially the Union Home Ministry.

Fourthly, our impression is that where the Sangh Parivar is concerned, officials become coy, unavailable, and develop cold feet. Surprisingly, the CBI was the only organization willing to share and provide information. They are convinced of the soundness of their case and confident that they will be able to prove the charge once the trial begins.... The people accused of the crime go about their normal routine, participate in elections, and continue to escape punishment. Officials who connived in this crime or who refused to intervene and stop this crime have either been promoted or have joined the Sangh Parivar (for example, the District Magistrate of Ayodhya and the Superintendent of Police).

If the process of justice is stalled and criminals remain at large, then people will take the law into their own hands. The indulgent attitude of the GOI towards the Sangh Parivar has cost the country dearly. Its democratic institutions stand compromised and its system of justice subverted from within. Since the United Front Government has staked its claim on the principle of secularism and social justice, it must expedite the prosecution of these accused of conspiring to demolish the Babari Masjid and the violence that was unleashed.

Despite overwhelming evidence in the form of affidavits, police FIRS, the CBI's investigations, the Citizens Tribunal on Ayodhya headed by two former judges of the Supreme Court and an ex-Chief Justice of the High Court, cases stemming from the demolition of the Babari Masjid are languishing due to official apathy.

We, therefore, demand:

●          That the Central Government request the Allahabad. High Court to immediately appoint a judge to fill up the vacancy left behind by Judge Vimal Kishore's transfer.

●          That the Special Sessions Court be requested to expedite the hearing and framing of charges so that the trials can be last begin. This will help in speeding up the legal process since the accused can no longer prolong or delay the judicial proceedings.

●          That the Central Government move the Supreme Court to vacate the stay order issued against the Liberians Commission by the Delhi High Court on August 23, 1995 and to request that the judgement of the High Court pending since November 22, 1995 be delivered.

●          That the Government of India ask the UP Governor to order the UP Police to register cases and begin prosecution under the FIRS filed by them.

●          Finally, that the Government of India request the Supreme Court to take up contempt proceedings against those who had submitted sworn affidavits before it on November 27, 1992.

●          (Source: The Mainstream, 13 July, 1996)

Shahabuddin's Reply to Mainstream,

13 July, 1996

The report on the progress of the judicial proceedings relating to the demolition of the Babari Masjid on December 1992 [published as a document ("Babari Masjid Demolition: Expedite Judicial Prosecution of the Guilty") in Mainstream (July 13, 1996], admirable in itself, omits to mention the contempt to the illegal construction of the concrete platform to the east of the then standing Babari Masjid during July 9-26, 1992, in violation of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court. In this case Kalyan Singh, the then Chief Minister of UP, was awarded one day's token detention as punishment; but the case is still pending. The structure, constricted in contempt of the law, continues to stand.

The Supreme Court ‘should be requested to hear the case and dispose it of by-passing suitable orders. Contempt proceedings are by their very nature summary proceedings and deserve urgent hearing in the interest of the majority of the law.