A decision upheld

Published : Dec 20, 2002 00:00 IST

THE Mayawati government, under attack either for being in a minority or for taking a soft stand on the accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case, was provided a breather by the Supreme Court on November 29 in the case. The court ruled that the government's decision not to issue a fresh notification setting up a special court to facilitate the prosecution of Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani and Union Ministers M.M. Joshi and Uma Bharati was valid under law as the prosecution could continue in the Rae Bareli special court if the prosecuting agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), so desired. Chief Minister Mayawati, who declared in September that she would not issue a fresh notification because it would have no bearing on the case whatsoever, had attracted criticism for trying to shield the guilty in order to save her government. Mayawati maintained that a fresh notification would further delay the case and that the CBI could go ahead with the prosecution in the special court which already existed at Rae Bareli. Those who benefited from the quashing of the earlier notification also included senior Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Shiv Sena leaders.

Upholding the government's decision, the apex court said the trial in the demolition case would now take place in Rae Bareli as had been decided by the government in consultation with the Allahabad High Court. Disposing of a bunch of petitions challenging the High Court order quashing an October 1993 notification, a Bench consisting of Chief Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice Arun Kumar said that as the trial had been assigned to the Rae Bareli court, "we see no justification in the petitions." When counsel for one of the petitioners, Mohammed Aslam alias Bhure, insisted that the trial should be held in Lucknow, the Bench said, "No person much less the petitioners in public interest can claim for a special court at a special place for the trial of a case".

The order puts an end to the controversy over which court should try the Ayodhya cases. Senior counsel for the Uttar Pradesh government, K.K. Venugopal, denied that this meant that there had been a setback to the trial. He said that the plea against the Mayawati government had been dismissed on substantive grounds.

The controversy arose when the High Court quashed in February 2001 the State government notification of October 1993 assigning the trial of the case against Advani, Joshi and Uma Bharti to a Special Court in Lucknow, which later ordered the framing of charges against them. The High Court ruled that the notification was defective and improper since it was issued without its mandatory prior permission. The court, however, described the defect as of a technical nature and said it was "curable." The then Rajnath Singh government in U.P., however, refused to "cure" the flaw. The Special CBI Court dropped proceedings against 13 more accused in May on the basis of the same technicality, saying that they could be prosecuted only after the U.P. government issued a fresh notification. Prosecution of a total of 21 accused was thus dropped as a result of the High Court declaring the notification setting up the special court "faulty". Prosecution against 26 others in the same case, mainly bureaucrats and lower-level police officials, however, went on.

The matter came to the Supreme Court after some social activists, including columnist Kuldip Nayyar, challenged the February 12 court order facilitating the dropping of charges against the 21 accused. The petitioners sought a direction to the State government that the accused persons should not be allowed to go scot-free on a `trifle technical ground'. The apex court ordered the government on July 29 to state whether it would issue a fresh notification. The government, in its reply on September 28, stated that there was no need for a fresh notification.

Sign in to Unlock member-only benefits!
  • Bookmark stories to read later.
  • Comment on stories to start conversations.
  • Subscribe to our newsletters.
  • Get notified about discounts and offers to our products.
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide to our community guidelines for posting your comment