Babri case adjourned as judge is absent

March 22, 2017

New Delhi, Mar 22: Justice Rohinton Nariman, who made remarks about reviving the criminal conspiracy charge against BJP veteran L.K. Advani and other top leaders, including Union Minister Uma Bharti, during the previous hearing of the Babri Masjid demolition case, was not a part of the Supreme Court Bench on Wednesday.

adjourned

On March 6, Justice Nariman, who was sitting as a judge along with Justice P.C. Ghose, remarked that “there was something peculiar going on in this case” and opened the floor for initiating a debate on reopening the criminal conspiracy charge against BJP leaders. The court was hearing a CBI appeal against the dropping of the conspiracy charge against them.

On Wednesday, the Bench was sitting in a combination of Justices Ghose and the newly-appointed Justice Dipak Gupta.

Justice Rohinton Nariman was heading a Bench in court 13 with Justice P.C. Pant.

When the Babri matter came up for hearing, Justice Ghose said the case may be adjourned as it was part-heard.

“My brother [J. Nariman] is not present. The case is part-heard,” Justice Ghose said.

Senior advocate K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Advani, asked the case to come up after four weeks.

“That would be in May...” Justice Ghose disapproved. The judge is retiring on May 27.

Justice Ghose then agreed to hear the matter on March 23 with Justice Nariman by his side on the Bench.

The sudden turn of events on March 6 came on an appeal filed by the CBI in 2011, during the UPA era, in the Supreme Court against the dropping of the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and other leaders like Ms. Bharti, Murli Manohar Joshi, Vinay Katiyar, Sadvi Ritambara, Giriraj Kishore and Vishnu Hari Dalmia.

“We prima facie do not approve of the way these people have been discharged... And no additional charge sheet filed so far? See, people cannot be discharged like this on technical grounds,” Justice Nariman observed orally then.

“We will allow you [CBI] to file supplementary charge sheet by including the conspiracy charge. We will ask the trial court to conduct a joint trial in a Lucknow court,” he said.

The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General Neeraj Kishan Kaul, had seemed to agree with the court's observations and submitted that a joint trial should be conducted.

However, Mr. Venugopal strongly objected to the turn of events and argued that the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and other leaders were already dropped, and its revival would mean the reexamination of the 186 witnesses who had deposed in the case. Mr. Venugopal pointed out that the CBI had appealed the Supreme Court after an inordinate delay.

But the Bench remained adamant.

The Babri Masjid demolition case stemmed from two crime files: Crime No: 197/1992 and Crime No: 198/1992. Both were filed shortly after the disputed structure of Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Crime no. 197/1992 was registered in the Ayodhya Police Station against “lakhs of unknown kar sevaks”. This FIR dealt with the actual demolition of the masjid. It lined up a bunch of serious offences, including robbery or dacoity with attempt to commit murder,causing hurt by an act endangering life or safety of others, deterring public servants from doing duty and promoting enmity between different religious groups. The most severe of these offences could get the offender up to 10 years in jail.

The second one, Crime no. 198/1992, was registered against 12 persons, including Ashok Singhal, Mr. Giriraj Kishore, Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi, Mr. Dalmiya, Mr. Katiyar, Ms. Bharati and Sadhvi Ritambara, who were on the dais at the ''Ram Katha Kunj'' when the masjid was being demolished.

They were accused of promoting enmity, making imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration and statements conducing to public mischief. Maximum punishment, if found guilty for these offences, was up to five years'’ imprisonment. The cases are being tried in courts in Lucknow and Rae Bareilly, respectively.

The CBI took over Crime 197 in Lucknow, while 198 remained with the State CID in Rae Bareilly. Eventually 198 also got transferred to the CBI and began being heard in the Lucknow court.

Now, with the CBI investigating both crimes as one, a joint charge sheet was filed on October 5, 1993 accusing Mr. Advani and the other leaders of conspiracy.

The CBI charge sheet alleged that a secret meeting took place at the residence of Mr. Katiyar on the eve of the demolition, during which the final decision to bring down the disputes structure was taken. The Special Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Court also found the conpsiracy prima facie tenable.

However, in February 2001, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court found a technical error in the manner Crime 198 was transferred to the CBI without consulting the High Court. Though it did not touch upon the conspiracy charge against the leaders, the High Court asked the Uttar Pradesh government to correct the flaw. Subsequent governments failed to act and Crime 198 finally got detached and returned to Rae Bareilly.

On May 4, 2001, Special Judge, Lucknow, Shrikant Shukla dropped the conspiracy charge against Advani and 20 others on the ground that Crime 197 — the Special Court was only trying this crime — was only regarding the actual demolition and not the hatching of any conspiracy. On May 20, 2010, the High Court upheld Judge Shukla's order while dismissing the CBI's revision petition.

Arguing before the Supreme Court in its appeal on February 19, 2011, the CBI submitted that Judge Shukla made an “artificial distinction” in the demolition case in order to drop the names of Mr. Advani and the 20 others for the reason that they did not participate in the “actual demolition”. The CBI called for a joint trial of both Crime nos. 197 and 198 like how they did previously.

“Acts of instigation, facilitation, the actual demolition of the masjid, the continuous assault on media persons, thus, form a single connected transaction and can well be a concerted conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC. In respect of continuous criminal act attracting various offences, the transaction has to be viewed in as a whole and evidence cannot be led at two different courts,” the CBI said in its 2011 appeal.

In his defence, Mr. Advani had argued that the entire endeavour of the CBI to file a composite charge sheet and foist conspiracy charges against him and the other leaders during the UPA government's time was a politically motivated one. Mr. Advani had claimed that the Special Court, in 2001, rightly come to the firm conclusion that it had no jurisdiction to hear the charge of conspiracy. Mr. Advani defended that the CBI's appeals were sheer abuse of law.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 14,2024

kovindpanel.jpg

The high-level committee on simultaneous elections, chaired by Ram Nath Kovind, on Thursday met President Droupadi Murmu at Rashtrapati Bhavan and submitted its report on 'One Nation, One Election'. The report comprises 18,626 pages.

Home Minister Amit Shah was also present at Rashtrapati Bhawan when Kovind led panel submitted the report.

"Simultaneous polls to Lok Sabha and state assemblies can be held in first step, followed by local body polls within 100 days in second step," reported PTI quoting the panel.

"Synchronised polls for all three tiers of government to improve governance architecture, in line with quest of aspirational India," it added.

The report has been submitted 191 days after the constitution of the panel on September 2, 2023.

It's further reported that the proposal also puts focus on having a singular electoral roll for holding Lok Sabha, state assembly and local body polls.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 22,2024

kejriatishi.jpg

New Delhi, Mar 22: The Aam Aadmi Party has made it clear that Arvind Kejriwal will remain the Delhi Chief Minister despite his arrest in the liquor policy case. While no law would stop the AAP leader from running the state from prison, the jail guidelines would make it extremely difficult.

Kejriwal was arrested yesterday by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), following his avoidance of nine summons issued by the investigative agency in relation to the Delhi liquor policy case. 

The decision to apprehend Kejriwal transpired shortly after the High Court's denial of protection from arrest. With this development, Kejriwal becomes the second opposition Chief Minister to face arrest by the ED within a span of fewer than two months, following Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren's similar fate in January 2024 due to allegations in a graft case. Subsequently, Hemant Soren was replaced by his party colleague, Champai Soren.

Delhi government minister Atishi declared shortly after Kejriwal's arrest that he would not step down from his position. However, the legality and feasibility of a detained Chief Minister continuing to fulfill official duties warrant examination.

A former law officer of Delhi's Tihar Jail says that an inmate can only hold two meetings in a week, which would make it difficult for Mr Kejriwal to carry out his responsibilities as Chief Minister.

Can he run government from prison?

While theoretically plausible, governing from detention presents logistical challenges. However, there exists no explicit prohibition against a Chief Minister conducting official responsibilities while under arrest. Disqualification only occurs upon conviction.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 outlines disqualification provisions for specific offenses, necessitating a conviction for those holding office.

Will centre impose president’s rule?

Constitution expert SK Sharma told TOI that there exists no specific legal provision mandating the automatic resignation of a state's Chief Minister upon arrest. He cited the example of former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav, who appointed his wife Rabri Devi as CM during his arrest. "Former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad Yadav made his wife Rabri Devi the CM of the state when he was arrested. More recently, Hemant Soren in Jharkhand also resigned. Calling cabinet meetings in the jail or review meetings with officials in his cell does not seem practical," said Sharma.

Sharma further indicated that if AAP persisted in retaining Kejriwal as CM, it could lead to a deadlock, potentially prompting the Centre to impose President's rule in Delhi.

What may happen next?

Despite AAP's unwavering stance on Kejriwal's continuation in office, internal sources say that potential successors, including Atishi and health minister Saurabh Bharadwaj. Atishi, known for her extensive portfolio and close ties to Kejriwal, alongside Bharadwaj, a prominent minister with significant responsibilities, emerged as likely contenders. Additionally, sources speculated about the surprise candidacy of Kejriwal's wife, Sunita, given her background as a revenue services officer and active involvement in party affairs.

However, finding a successor of comparable stature to Kejriwal, a national convener of the party and three-time Delhi CM, presents a formidable challenge for AAP.

Role of Delhi's Lieutenant Governor

Delhi's unique power structure, featuring an elected Chief Minister and a Lieutenant Governor appointed by the Centre, presents a complex scenario. Kejriwal's ability to continue as CM hinges on legal relief, failing which the Lieutenant Governor can seek Presidential intervention, potentially leading to the imposition of President's rule.

Recent cases demonstrate how denial of bail can compel resignation, highlighting the precarious position of arrested officials.

In light of these developments, the Lieutenant Governor could invoke 'failure of constitutional machinery' to justify President's rule, thereby bringing the national capital under direct Union government control until the end of the current Assembly's tenure in February 2025.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 27,2024

keralaCMdaughter.jpg

The Enforcement Directorate has filed a money laundering case against Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena Vijayan, her IT company and some others to probe a case of alleged illegal payments made by a private mineral firm to her and the company, official sources said Wednesday.

The agency has registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and is expected to summon the people involved, the sources said.

The ED case has been booked after taking cognisance of a complaint filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), an investigative arm of the Union corporate affairs ministry, they said.

The case stems from an Income Tax Department investigation that alleged that a private company called Cochin Minerals And Rutile Ltd (CMRL), made an illegal payment of Rs 1.72 crore to Veena's company-- Exalogic Solutions-- during 2018 to 2019, even though the IT firm had not provided any service to the company.

The Karnataka High Court had last month dismissed a plea filed by Exalogic Solutions against the probe initiated by the SFIO.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.