 | « Back to article | Print this article |
Eighteen years after the Babri Masjid was demolished in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, the judgment about the disputed land has finally been pronounced. But the case against the accused in the mosque demolition is still going on in the Central Bureau of Investigation's special court.
The case has now been deferred to October 5 since a notification appointing a new judge for the CBI special court is yet to be issued. The court is likely to resume hearing in the second week of October, when the cross-examination of Anju Gupta, security officer to Bharatiya Janata Party leader L K Advani, is scheduled to take place.
Lawyers associated with the case are disappointed that such an important suit is being stalled due to the absence of a judge.
"After much delay and hurdles, the proceedings had commenced before the court. But the judge was transferred and we were told that a new judge would be posted on June 8, 2010. When the matter came up on that day, we were informed that a new judge would be appointed immediately and the trial could resume on June 12. But there was no progress on that day. The matter last came up for hearing in the last week of September. We have been assured that the trial will resume now on October 5 after a new judge is appointed," said a lawyer.
Zafaryab Jilani, one of the advocates connected to the case, says the case has been going on for 18 years now. "I don't see any conclusion in sight in the near future. This is an important case since it will reveal the truth behind the entire episode," he said.
Incidentally, the case came to a halt at a very crucial stage. Anju Gupta's evidence is considered important as she was the one accompanying Bharatiya Janata Party leader L K Advani at the time of the mosque's demolition. The other accused in the case are leaders of the saffron combine including Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Vinay Katiyar, Sadhvi Ritambhara and Vishnu Hari Dalmiya.
Each one of them faces charges of delivering inflammatory speeches which allegedly triggered the kar sevaks to bring down the mosque.
The recent verdict of the high court on the title suit will have no bearing on the criminal case. The case has been dragging on and till date, the court has examined only eight witnesses. The case was further delayed when the CBI moved the high court seeking permission to add fresh charges against some of the accused. However, the high court ruled that fresh charges cannot be added as the existing ones have not been proven as yet.
"Anju Gupta had said there were specific intelligence inputs that harm will be caused to the Babri Masjid. She had told the court that two types of threats were mentioned by the Intelligence Bureau. The IB believed that the people who had assembled may try to harm the structure and Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence may cause law and order problems," said a source.
She also told the court that Advani had given a provocative speech in Ayodhya before the mosque was demolished. In her deposition, she also mentioned Joshi and Bharati among others, saying they had made similar speeches.
After the demolition of the Babri masjid, the Uttar Pradesh government had set up a special court in Rae Bareli and the investigation was handed over to the CBI. The CBI later clubbed the two FIRs in the case: one against the kar sevaks and the other against the right-wing leaders. But the accused challenged the CBI's decision to club the FIRs before the high court, which observed that the investigative agency should have consulted the court before taking the step.
The HC observed that the only the state government was empowered to issue a notification to resolve the matter.
Initially, there were 49 accused mentioned in the FIR, but proceedings against 21 of them were dropped due to the clubbed FIRs. The proceedings against these persons, including Advani, were kept in abeyance in 2002. However, in 2005, when the CBI's revision petition was heard by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court, it reinstated the charges of provoking people intentionally against these leaders.