The Hindu : Masjid case takes a new turn

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 14, 2003

National

National

Masjid case takes a new turn

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI FEB. 13. With the Supreme Court today deciding to hear a review petition against its judgment of November 2002, upholding a notification of the Uttar Pradesh Government for trying the Babri Masjid demolition case against the Deputy Prime Minister, L.K. Advani, and others in a special court at Rae Bareilly, the case has taken a new turn.

On November 29 last, a three-judge Bench, comprising the then Chief Justice G.B. Pattanaik, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice Arun Kumar, accepted the State Government's submission regarding the constitution of a special court in Rae Bareilly and dismissed a special leave petition challenging the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court quashing charges against Mr. Advani and others.

After the judgment, the 10-year-old case — in which the Vishwa Hindu Parishad leaders, Ashok Singal, Giriraj Kishore, Uma Bharti, Vishnu Hari Dalmia, Vinay Katiyar and Sadvi Ritambara, were also cited as accused — got revived and it was expected that a de novo trial would commence against them in the Rae Bareilly court.

Soon after the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, two FIRs were registered, viz. 197/92 (without naming the kar sevaks) and 198/92 (against Mr. Advani and seven others).

The Uttar Pradesh Government, in consultation with the High Court, issued a notification on September 9, 1993 transferring crime no 197/92 to a special CBI court. But as crime number 198/92 was not covered by the notification, an executive order was issued on October 8, 1993 for transfer of that case also, and till February 2001, trial in both the cases should proceed in the same court.

The special court framed charges against 47 persons in the first FIR and Mr. Advani and seven others in the second. But on revision, the High Court, by an order in February 2001, quashed the charges against Mr. Advani and others on the technical ground that the transfer of the case was made without consulting the High Court and, hence, illegal. As a result, the trial continued only against the 47 persons.

Mohd. Aslam Bhure filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court against the High Court judgment for a direction to the State Government to issue a fresh notification for reviving the case against the three Union Ministers and other VHP leaders.

The court disposed of the petition holding that "this is a matter in which the Government in consultation with the High Court had issued a notification to establish a special court at Rae Bareilly for trying the offences in crime no 198/92. 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".

In his review petition filed through senior counsel, O.P. Sharma, Mr. Bhure alleged that the judgment was discriminatory and had been passed to benefit eight VVIPs, who had been treated favourably. He said the court had not afforded any opportunity to him and the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

The apex court had committed a palpable error overlooking his submission that there could not be two venues at different places (Lucknow for 47 accused and Rae Bareilli for eight accused) for the trial of the same offences committed by the same accused and having the same list of prosecution witnesses.

The petitioner said there was clear miscarriage of justice in passing the impugned judgment relying upon "a fraudulent, misleading, baseless and dishonest notification issued by the Uttar Pradesh Government dated September 28, 2002", after 10 years of judicial labour in lower courts and filed one day prior to the date of hearing on November 29, 2002.

He alleged that a most extraordinary matter like this had been dealt with in a casual manner by the court while passing the impugned judgment.

This could be rectified and set right only by hearing the petition in open court and opportunity given to him to present his arguments, he said and sought a direction in this regard and the court today directed listing of the petition for hearing.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National