In the present case, crimes which shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed almost 25 years ago. The accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of the conduct of the CBI [Central Bureau of Investigation] in not pursuing the prosecution of the aforesaid alleged offenders in a joint trial, and because of technical defects which were easily curable, but which were not cured by the State Government…”
Further, “There shall be no trial. There shall be no transfer of the Judge conducting the trial until the entire trial concludes. The case shall not be adjourned on any ground except when the Sessions Court finds it impossible to carry on the trial for that particular date. In such an event, on grant of adjournment to the next day or a closely proximate date, reasons for the same shall be recorded in writing. The CBI shall ensure that on every date fixed for evidence, some prosecution witnesses must remain present, so that for want of witnesses the matter be not adjourned. The Sessions Court will complete the trial and deliver the judgment within a period of two years from the date of receipt of this judgment…” de novo
This extraordinary order was passed by the Supreme Court of India on April 17 of this year – a quarter century after the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. The intervening years had seen dramatic twists and turns in the two criminal cases that had emerged out of the demolition, each taking its own tortuous course, when evidence all along pointed to the filing of a single joint case with a strong criminal conspiracy element. As the Supreme Court said: “The Court of Sessions will frame an additional charge under Section 120-B [conspiracy] against L.K. Advani, Vinay Katiar, Uma Bharati, Sadhvi Ritambara, Murli Manohar Joshi and Vishnu Hari Dalmia”.
A health worker (left) cheers a seven-year old boy Rudra Singh and his family members who prepare to leave an isolation centre functioning at a Gurdwara in New Delhi after recovering from COVID-19, on May 30, 2021. Photo: AP
It should be evident from the words of the apex court that this was an instance of justice being delayed, not in the usual, lackadaisical manner that justice is delayed in this country, but because the Uttar Pradesh government over the years and its chief prosecution instrument, the CBI, willed for it to be delayed.
If the demolition of the Babri Masjid was a shame whose terrifying social-communal consequences are still unfolding 25 years after the incident, the failure of the law to bring the offenders to justice within a reasonable time stands as a reminder of how easily the powerful in this country can subvert the system to suit their own partisan interests. In this case, the interest was quite clearly to save the accused from being tried for conspiracy.
Indeed, the legal trajectory of the criminal cases registered against the accused once again proves that in a situation where the prosecution (here the CBI) is answerable to those in power, even overwhelming evidence against the accused will not be enough to prosecute them, much less secure their conviction. The close proximity of the accused with the power centres, either at the Centre or in the State or both, virtually means that they can manipulate the system and dodge the long arm of the law.
In the Babri demolition case, voluminous material was available to the prosecution via reports of official agencies and enquiry commissions, among them the Liberhan Commission. These emphatically brought out the conspiracy angle behind the demolition. And the courts themselves accepted the conspiracy aspect at various points.
The Liberhan Commission said in its report : “Vinay Katiyar, Champat Rai, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Mahant Avaidyanath and D.B. Roy etc had begun plotting for demolishing the disputed structure though secretly right from the beginning. The methodology adopted for the demolition was sudden attack on the disputed structure, sudden simultaneous attack on journalists, proceeding with technical logistics like putting of ropes in the holes and then pulling the wall under the domes.” (Paragraph 61.18)
The Commission added: “The state by its conduct, ensured non-use of force, and even eliminated the chances for the same by resisting the deployment of the central forces, and restraining the use of force against kar sevaks and the leaders of the movement. Failure to prepare any contingency plan to meet various eventualities not only sent a signal that the police, executive and state was supporting the mobilisation, but also that they would ignore any plot hatched. Participation of the Government in levelling of the structures around the disputed structure, construction of the Chabutra in violation of court’s orders, issuance of specific orders not only not to fire, but also not to use force against kar sevaks emerged from the prognosis of evidence.” (Paragraph 61.19)