THE STATES

A case at a snail's pace

Will the framing of charges against the accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case before the Special Court take place on July 23?

VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN

THE Special Court in Lucknow, which is hearing the Babri Masjid demolition case, has fixed July 23 for the framing of charges against the 49 accused. However, given the history of proceedings in the case, few in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which investigated the demolition and related developments, expect the crucial formality to be completed that day.

In the last two years, the court has on 12 occasions set dates for the framing of charges; however, on each occasion the Special Court, which will go into the criminal conspiracy behind the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, failed to complete the process for one reason or another.

Among the accused are Union Home Minister L.K. Advani, Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh and Bharatiya Janata Party president Kushabhau Thakre.

SHIVKUMAR PUSHPAKAR
L.K.Advani.

The Special Court ordered the framing of charges first on September 9, 1997, nearly five years after the demolition. When that deadline was missed, the court set another date: October 7, 1997. On that day, the majority of the accused failed to present themselves before the court and their lawyers sought postponement of the hearings on that ground. The lawyers claimed that the accused had the highest regard for the court and its proceedings, but that they had been unable to appear in person on account of professional obligations and should therefore be allowed to attend the court at a later date. The court acceded to this request. Since then, the accused have resorted to several ruses in order to delay the proceedings.

Within two months of the Special Court passing its September 1997 order to frame charges, 33 of the accused filed revision petitions before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court questioning the trial court's decision. Among those who filed such revision petitions were Shiv Sena leader Moreshwar Save, BJP leader and (now) Union Minister Uma Bharati, Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders Ashok Singhal and Sadhvi Ritambara and veteran BJP leader Vijayaraje Scindia. R.N. Srivastava, who was the District Magistrate of Faizabad at the time of the demolition, and D.B. Rai, the then Senior Superintendent of Police of Faizabad, too filed revision petitions. According to sources in the CBI, these petitions have virtually stalled the moves to frame charges.

Proceedings in the Special Court have been stayed on several occasions as a result of revision petitions. In the latest such case on June 10, U.K. Dhawan, the vacation judge of the High Court, issued a stay order barely five days before the Special Court was to frame charges. It was then that the Special Court set July 23 as the new date. Whether charges can be framed on that day is far from clear: the revision petitions are to come up for hearing in the High Court on two days from July 20. If the High Court issues yet another stay order, charges cannot be framed on July 23.

R.V.MOORTHY
Murali Manohar Joshi.

Apparently, CBI officials believe that the accused will continue with their delaying tactics even if they do not obtain a stay from the High Court. They believe that Advani, Joshi, Uma Bharati and Kalyan Singh may yet again cite "professional obligations", may not appear before the court, and may seek a postponement of the hearings.

Counsel for the CBI, including P.K. Choube, have repeatedly argued that revision petitions should not be used as a device to stall proceedings in the trial court. During arguments, they cited the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) bribery case. The apex court ruled that the mere presence of revision petitions was not enough to stop the proceedings in the trial court. However, the High Court has not been persuaded by this argument.

There is another obvious aberration: in the last two years the Special Court has failed to frame charges also against those accused who have not filed revision petitions against the trial court's judgment that there is a prima facie case against them. Only 33 of the 49 accused have filed revision petitions, and the Special Court can frame charges against the 16 others - among whom are Advani, Joshi and Kalyan Singh.

C.V.SUBRAMANYAM
Kushabhau Thakre.

Counsel for the accused, however, claim that if the Special Court framed charges against just these 16 accused initially, it would lead to complications in the hearing and evaluation of the case. According to I.B. Singh, advocate for Srivastava and Rai, in that case, the case against the 16 would have to be taken up separately and this would have long-term implications for the case. The court would not want to create such a complication, he remarked.

Whatever the merits of such arguments, the pace at which proceedings in the case have moved over the years has not exactly enhanced the standing of the judiciary. The fact that the legal inquiry into the criminal aspects of an event that was described as a national shame has become bogged down in legal technicalities seems to point to a distinct lack of judicial will.

AJAY KUMAR
Uma Bharati.

Some observers say that the demolition case seems to be following the pattern of the original case in Ayodhya, the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. That dispute has a legal history of over a hundred years: it was in 1885 that the first suit was filed in the Faizabad court. The case later moved to many different legal forums, including the Supreme Court, and was later reverted to the sessions court. After more than a century of litigation, that dispute is nowhere near resolution. Going by the pace of proceedings, the demolition case too seems set for a long legal haul.