The Other Ayodhya Case: Trial in Final Phase to Decide Fate of Babri Masjid Demolition Culprits
After 27 years of often-derailed investigations and trial, the matter has finally reached the concluding stages of hearing in a special CBI court in Lucknow.
File photo of Babri Masjid (Credits-AP)
After the Supreme Court in a 5-0 unanimous verdict ruled on Saturday that the 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya will be handed over to a trust for the construction of a Ram Mandir– another related case might see a verdict from a court in Lucknow not so long afterwards.
This second case pertains directly to the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 and the alleged criminal conspiracy behind it. After 27 years of often-derailed investigations and trial, the matter has finally reached the concluding stages of hearing in a special CBI court in Lucknow.
Here’s a brief history of the case which has seen many ups and downs. A case which after almost three decades still lingers on. A case in which many of the 49 accused are already dead and those still active include some high-profile names of Indian politics, among them a former deputy prime minister, former chief minister, some former cabinet ministers, and a few sitting Members of Parliament .
DEMOLITION AND THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FIRs
Just minutes after demolition of the Babri mosque on December 6, 1992, the first FIR no. 197/92 was registered against unknown “karsewaks” at 5.15pm under sections 395, 397, 332, 337,338,295,297, 153A of IPC, and section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Ten minutes later a second FIR no. 198/92 was registered under sections 153A, 153B, 505 of IPC against LK Advani, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar, Vishnu Hari Dalmiya and Sadhvi Ritambahra. This was the hate and provocative speech case.
Forty-seven other FIRs were also registered in the days to come related to offences of assault on media persons, looting valuables like cameras and reporting gadgets from them, etc. All FIRs were filed at Thana Ramjanmaboomi in Ayodhya.
CASES TO CBI
In days following the FIRs, a curious move was made by the-then government. While case no. 197 was recommended for CBI probe, case no. 198 against accused politicians was handed to the CB-CID wing of the Uttar Pradesh police. On August 27, 1993, the UP state government transferred all the remaining 48 cases including case no. 198 for CBI probe.
CBI took up investigation in all the cases related to Babri Masjid demolition and filed a consolidated single charge sheet against 40 people in all the 49 cases in a special court of Lucknow on October 5, 1993.
More than two years later on, January 11, 1996, the agency filed a supplementary charge sheet against nine other prominent people. The total tally of accused reached 49.
CHARGE OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY SLAPPED
Contrary to initial FIRs in the case, the CBI in its charge sheet came up with the argument of having concrete and strong evidence to prove that demolition of the mosque was the fallout of a larger and sinister conspiracy. It also came up with new names as accused, which included top guns of the BJP and RSS, the stalwarts of the Ram temple movement. A charge under section 120(b) of criminal conspiracy was added against the accused.
LEGAL BATTLE AND DERAILMENTS THERE AFTER
With charge sheet being filed against the top guns of BJP and RSS, the stage was set for commencement of trial in the case. However the matter got entangled into legal complexities.
September 9, 1997
The special judge after hearing the petitioner and the defense counsel, passed an order holding a prima facie case for framing of charges against the accused under section 120(B), that is criminal conspiracy, under IPC and other relevant sections of law. The court ordered that formal charges would be framed in the next hearing.
Some of the accused move the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court against the lower court’s decision to frame charges. The matter kept lingering through legal manoeuvrings.
February 12, 2001
Justice Jagdish Bhalla of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court passed a detailed order. He found no illegality in a joint single charge sheet for all the FIRs, since offences were allegedly committed in same course of action for accomplishing a conspiracy.
However taking note of administrative lapse on part of the UP government, relating to notification of the trial court for crime no 198/92, that is hate speech case against Advani and others, the high court while upholding framing of charges in all other 48 cases, denied the same in case no. 198 against the top guns—Advani, Joshi, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and others.
The high court, however, said that the state government’s faulty notification for fixing the trial court dated October 8, 1993 was curable and could be done so through another notification.
May 4, 2001
Against the backdrop of the HC order, the Lucknow court dropped proceedings against not just the original eight accused, but also against 13 others.
June 16, 2001
The CBI wrote to the UP government, asking it to rectify the error pointed out by the high court and issue a fresh notification empowering the special court for resuming trial. The UP government then headed by chief minister Rajnath Singh decided not to issue any fresh notification.
TRIAL IN TWO DIFFERENT COURTS—LUCKNOW AND RAEBARELI
January 27, 2003
Following legal deliberations, the CBI moved a petition in the designated court of Raebareli, requesting the court to start to proceed with the trial of the case 198/92 related to hate speeches against Advani and others.
September 19, 2003
In a major development, special magistrate, Raebareli discharged Advani in case no. 198/92 but ordered framing of charges against the remaining accused. Advani was then the deputy prime minister of India.
On July 6, 2005, the high court after hearing several review petitions filed against the Raebareli court’s order of acquitting Advani, ordered re-framing of charges against him and all the other accused. Subsequently on July 26, the Raebareli court framed charges against all the accused.
As the mater kept languishing in two different court, a debate kept on raging about the necessity for it and whether the two separate trials could do justice to the matter in which the sequence of the crimes was related. The earlier order of the Lucknow trial court dropping proceedings against 13 other accused and further striking down the charge of criminal conspiracy against the most important of the accused, also remained a cause of legal concern.
March 20, 2012
After a series of derailments and legal hurdles from the trial courts and high court, the CBI finally reached the Supreme court in 2011 and subsequently filed an affidavit on March 20, 2012 during the UPA 2 government headed by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The CBI made a strong argument for common trial of all the 49 cases. It argued:
1) Investigations in all 49 cases had disclosed that there was a single general conspiracy by all the 49 accused, to demolish the disputed structure.
2) Each of the accused facilitated and participated in the fulfilment of the criminal conspiracy.
3) All the 21 persons against whom the proceedings were dropped were party to criminal conspiracy.
4) The 13 accused who were not being tried for any offences in any court of law were party to the conspiracy and demolition.
5) Hence, it was in the interest of justice that all the accused involved in criminal conspiracy and demolition of the disputed structure were tried in the court of special judge at Lucknow.
April 19, 2017
After remaining pending for almost five years in the Supreme Court, a major moment in the case came on April 19, 2017. The top court ruled against the Allahabad HC order of dropping conspiracy charges. The SC ordered invoking of conspiracy charges against the accused including LK Advani and 20 others. The trial of all cases was also brought back to the Lucknow court.
From 2017 onwards there had been a speedy hearing in the case as the charges were framed and trial on the joint charge sheet began. In between, with Kalyan Singh becoming the governor of Rajasthan, trial against him was stoped since he occupied a constitutional office.
However, recently, after he demitted the office of the governor, trial against him has also begun. A few months back on the directives of the Supreme Court, the special judge, Surendra Kumar Yadav, had also been given an extension till the time of completion of the hearing in the case.
SEVERAL ACCUSED AND WITNESSES ALREADY DEAD
Over the course of 27 years, as the matter now goes through day-to-day hearing, several accused are already dead: Bal Thackeray, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, and others.
The case has examined around 300 witnesses so far. Around 50 of them have passed away. Besides, volumes of written statements, press reports and government orders have been the part of the evidences.
Senior advocate IB Singh, who had argued in defence of several of the accused, said, “The trial is in its last phase now, a few more witnesses are to be examined, mostly against Kalyan Singh. We expect completion of trial in the case in the days to come.”
On the question that 27 years on a judgement is still awaited from a CBI court, Singh said, “The case has been of big drawbacks from the first day, right from why different FIRs were registered for a crime related to the same incident... over the years it has been more an effort of political witch hunt rather than serious investigation of the crime.”
Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox - subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what's happening in the world around you – in real time.
Recommended For You
- TV Actress Says Junior Artiste Raped Her, Left Her Pregnant
- Deepika Padukone’s Witty Response to Fan Saying ‘I love you’ to Ranveer Singh Goes Viral
- Bigg Boss 13: Vishal Aditya Singh, Hindustani Bhau Lock Horns During Salman Khan's Weekend Ka Vaar Task
- Enjoying Retired Life, Don't Want to Play Throughout Year: Yuvraj Singh
- Study Concludes Apple Watch Can Detect Heart Rate Irregularities