The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical issue regarding the demolition of the Babri Masjid. The Court has ordered a joint trial for all accused. This decision aims to consolidate proceedings and ensure a comprehensive resolution.
This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice R.F. Nariman. Justice R.F. Nariman authored the judgment.
Case Background
The case stems from the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. Two primary FIRs were registered on that day. Crime No. 197/1992 involved a large group of kar sevaks. They were accused of offenses including dacoity and promoting religious enmity. FIR No. 198/1992 named eight individuals. They were charged with promoting enmity between groups.
Subsequently, 46 additional FIRs for cognizable offenses and one for a non-cognizable offense were also registered. Initially, a Special Court in Lalitpur was designated to handle these cases. However, the State Government later transferred the cases to a Special Court in Lucknow.
A consolidated chargesheet was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against 48 individuals on October 5, 1993. The chargesheet included conspiracy charges. It alleged that several leaders were involved in the demolition.
The State Government amended the notification on October 8, 1993. This amendment included FIR No. 198/1992. This was done to ensure all 49 cases would be tried together in Lucknow. However, this amendment was later struck down due to lack of proper consultation with the High Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 6, 1992 | Demolition of Babri Masjid; FIRs 197 and 198 registered. |
| April 13, 1993 | Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code added to FIR No. 197/1992. |
| September 8, 1993 | State Government issues notification to try cases at Special Court, Lucknow. |
| October 5, 1993 | CBI files a consolidated chargesheet against 48 people. |
| October 8, 1993 | State Government amends notification to include FIR No. 198/1992; later struck down. |
| September 9, 1997 | Special Judge, Lucknow, finds prima facie case against accused for criminal conspiracy. |
| February 12, 2001 | Allahabad High Court rules the amended notification invalid. |
| May 4, 2001 | Special Court drops proceedings against 21 persons. |
| May 22, 2010 | High Court upholds the order of dropping proceedings against 21 persons. |
| April 19, 2017 | Supreme Court orders joint trial and transfers the case to Lucknow. |
Course of Proceedings
The Special Judge in Lucknow found a prima facie case against all accused persons in 1997. The court ordered charges of criminal conspiracy. It stated all offenses were part of the same transaction.
Criminal revision petitions were filed against this order. The High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, delivered a judgment on February 12, 2001. The High Court declared the amendment notification invalid. The court stated there was no consultation with the High Court. However, the court also upheld the joint chargesheet.
The CBI requested the State Government to rectify the defect in the notification. The State Government rejected this request. The CBI then filed a supplementary chargesheet against the eight accused persons at Rae Bareilly.
The Special Court dropped proceedings against 21 individuals on May 4, 2001. This order was challenged. The High Court upheld the order on May 22, 2010. The High Court stated there were two classes of accused.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These include:
- Section 120-B, IPC: Deals with criminal conspiracy. It punishes those who are part of a conspiracy to commit an offense.
- Section 147, IPC: Addresses the offense of rioting.
- Section 149, IPC: Concerns offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.
- Section 153-A, IPC: Punishes promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion.
- Section 153-B, IPC: Punishes imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
- Section 295, IPC: Addresses injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class.
- Section 295-A, IPC: Punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings.
- Section 332, IPC: Deals with voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty.
- Section 338, IPC: Addresses causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety.
- Section 395, IPC: Addresses the offense of dacoity.
- Section 505, IPC: Punishes statements conducing to public mischief.
The judgment also discusses Section 11(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This section allows the State Government to establish Special Courts.
Additionally, Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is relevant. This section allows for alteration or addition of charges. Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, deals with joinder of persons accused.
The judgment also discusses Section 406 and 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. These sections deal with the power of the Supreme Court and High Court to transfer cases.
Article 142 of the Constitution of India is also discussed. This article grants the Supreme Court the power to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice.
Arguments
The CBI argued that the High Court misinterpreted the 2001 judgment. The CBI contended that the judgment upheld the joint chargesheet. The CBI also argued that the offense of conspiracy was already in the charges made in FIR No. 197/1992.
The CBI stated that the supplementary chargesheet at Rae Bareilly was filed to expedite the trial. They argued that the charge of Section 120B could not be added at Rae Bareilly. This is because the conspiracy charge was already being tried at Lucknow.
The respondents argued that the 2001 judgment could not be reopened. They stated that the Supreme Court had dismissed appeals against it. They also argued that Article 142 could not be used to transfer the proceedings from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow. This would infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused.
The respondents also argued that Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that only the High Court can transfer the case.
An intervenor argued that the case at Rae Bareilly should be transferred to Lucknow. The intervenor stated that a joint chargesheet had been filed. They also contended that the trial need not begin de novo.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Party | Sub-Submission |
|---|---|---|
| Joint Trial | CBI | The 2001 judgment upheld the joint chargesheet. |
| Joint Trial | CBI | The impugned judgment made an artificial distinction between different kinds of offences and offenders. |
| Joint Trial | Intervenor | The case at Rae Bareilly should be transferred to Lucknow. |
| Conspiracy Charge | CBI | The offense of conspiracy was already contained in the charges made in FIR No.197 of 1992. |
| Conspiracy Charge | CBI | The charge of Section 120B could not be added at Rae Bareilly. |
| Conspiracy Charge | High Court | Criminal conspiracy was never made out against the aforesaid 8 or 13 persons. |
| Reopening of Judgment | Respondents | The 2001 judgment cannot be reopened. |
| Reopening of Judgment | Respondents | The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals against it. |
| Article 142 | Respondents | Article 142 cannot be used to transfer proceedings from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow. |
| Article 142 | Respondents | Transfer would infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused. |
| Transfer of Case | Respondents | Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that only the High Court can transfer the case. |
| De Novo Trial | Intervenor | The trial need not begin de novo. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court are:
- Whether the High Court’s judgment dated 12th February, 2001 was correctly interpreted by the impugned judgment.
- Whether the dropping of proceedings against 21 accused persons was valid.
- Whether a joint trial should be conducted for all accused persons.
- Whether the proceedings at Rae Bareilly should be transferred to Lucknow.
- Whether the Supreme Court can use Article 142 to transfer the case.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of 2001 Judgment | The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgment misinterpreted the 2001 judgment. The 2001 judgment clearly upheld the joint charge sheet. |
| Dropping of Proceedings | The Supreme Court found the dropping of proceedings against 21 accused persons to be invalid. They were already arrayed as accused in the charge of criminal conspiracy. |
| Joint Trial | The Supreme Court ordered a joint trial of all the offenses mentioned in the joint charge sheet. |
| Transfer of Proceedings | The Supreme Court ordered the transfer of proceedings from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow. This was to ensure a joint trial. |
| Use of Article 142 | The Supreme Court held that it could use Article 142 to transfer the case. This was to ensure complete justice. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered several authorities in its judgment. These authorities were used to support its reasoning.
Cases relied upon by the Court:
- Kehar Singh v. State of Delhi, 1988 SCC (Criminal) 711: This case was cited regarding the nature of criminal conspiracy.
- Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, 1993 SCC (Criminal) 961: This case was cited regarding the nature of criminal conspiracy.
- P.K. Narayan v. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC 142: This case was cited regarding the nature of criminal conspiracy.
- State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapar, 1996 Cr.L.J. 2448: This case was cited regarding the nature of criminal conspiracy.
- A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Another, (1988) 2 SCC 602: This case was discussed regarding the power of transfer of cases.
- Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Another, 1998 (4) SCC 409: This case was cited regarding the limitations of Article 142.
- State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883: This case was cited regarding the nature and scope of Article 142.
- R. v. Wilkes, (1770) 4 Burr 2527: This case was cited for the maxim “fiat justitia ruat cælum”.
Legal provisions considered by the Court:
- Section 11(1), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with the establishment of Special Courts.
- Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with criminal conspiracy.
- Section 147, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with rioting.
- Section 149, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with offenses committed by members of an unlawful assembly.
- Section 153-A, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with promoting enmity between groups.
- Section 153-B, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with imputations prejudicial to national integration.
- Section 216, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with alteration or addition of charges.
- Section 223, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with joinder of persons accused.
- Section 295, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with defiling places of worship.
- Section 295-A, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with outraging religious feelings.
- Section 332, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with causing hurt to deter a public servant.
- Section 338, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with causing grievous hurt.
- Section 395, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with dacoity.
- Section 406, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with the power of the Supreme Court to transfer cases.
- Section 407, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court to transfer cases.
- Section 505, Indian Penal Code: This section deals with statements conducing to public mischief.
- Article 142, Constitution of India: This article deals with the Supreme Court’s power to do complete justice.
- Article 361, Constitution of India: This article deals with the immunity of the Governor.
Authority Consideration
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Kehar Singh v. State of Delhi, 1988 SCC (Criminal) 711 | Supreme Court of India | Followed for understanding the nature of criminal conspiracy. |
| Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, 1993 SCC (Criminal) 961 | Supreme Court of India | Followed for understanding the nature of criminal conspiracy. |
| P.K. Narayan v. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC 142 | Supreme Court of India | Followed for understanding the nature of criminal conspiracy. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapar, 1996 Cr.L.J. 2448 | Supreme Court of India | Followed for understanding the nature of criminal conspiracy. |
| A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Another, (1988) 2 SCC 602 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished. The court stated that the facts of the case were different. |
| Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Another, 1998 (4) SCC 409 | Supreme Court of India | Followed for understanding the limitations of Article 142. |
| State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883 | Supreme Court of India | Followed for understanding the nature and scope of Article 142. |
| R. v. Wilkes, (1770) 4 Burr 2527 | King’s Bench | Cited for the maxim “fiat justitia ruat cælum”. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| The 2001 judgment upheld the joint chargesheet. | CBI | Accepted. The Court agreed that the 2001 judgment upheld the joint chargesheet. |
| The impugned judgment made an artificial distinction between different kinds of offences and offenders. | CBI | Accepted. The Court agreed that the impugned judgment made an artificial distinction. |
| The case at Rae Bareilly should be transferred to Lucknow. | Intervenor | Accepted. The Court ordered the transfer of the case to Lucknow. |
| The offense of conspiracy was already contained in the charges made in FIR No.197 of 1992. | CBI | Accepted. The Court agreed that the conspiracy charge was already present. |
| The charge of Section 120B could not be added at Rae Bareilly. | CBI | Accepted. The Court agreed that the conspiracy charge was already being tried at Lucknow. |
| Criminal conspiracy was never made out against the aforesaid 8 or 13 persons. | High Court | Rejected. The Court found that a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy was made out. |
| The 2001 judgment cannot be reopened. | Respondents | Partially Rejected. The Court clarified that it was not reopening the judgment, but enforcing its true intent. |
| The Supreme Court has dismissed appeals against it. | Respondents | Acknowledged. The Court acknowledged the dismissal of appeals but clarified its current action. |
| Article 142 cannot be used to transfer proceedings from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow. | Respondents | Rejected. The Court held that it could use Article 142 to ensure complete justice. |
| Transfer would infringe on the fundamental rights of the accused. | Respondents | Rejected. The Court stated that the fundamental rights of the accused would not be infringed. |
| Section 407 of the Cr.P.C. makes it clear that only the High Court can transfer the case. | Respondents | Rejected. The Court stated that its power under Article 142 was not limited by Section 407. |
| The trial need not begin de novo. | Intervenor | Accepted. The Court agreed that there was no need for a de novo trial. |
Treatment of Authorities
| Authority | Court’s View | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Kehar Singh v. State of Delhi, 1988 SCC (Criminal) 711 | Followed | Used to understand the nature of criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy. |
| Ajay Agarwal v. Union of India, 1993 SCC (Criminal) 961 | Followed | Used to understand the nature of criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that all conspirators are guilty for unlawful activities. |
| P.K. Narayan v. State of Kerala, (1995) SCC 142 | Followed | Used to understand the nature of criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that all conspirators are guilty for unlawful activities. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapar, 1996 Cr.L.J. 2448 | Followed | Used to understand the nature of criminal conspiracy, emphasizing that all conspirators are guilty for unlawful activities. |
| A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak & Another, (1988) 2 SCC 602 | Distinguished | The Court distinguished this case, stating that the facts were different. The Antulay case dealt with the non-obstante clause in Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952. |
| Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Another, 1998 (4) SCC 409 | Followed | Used to understand the limitations of Article 142, stating that it cannot be used to ignore substantive rights. |
| State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, (2014) 8 SCC 883 | Followed | Used to understand the nature and scope of Article 142, stating that it can be used to give preference to equity over law. |
| R. v. Wilkes, (1770) 4 Burr 2527 | Cited | Cited for the maxim “fiat justitia ruat cælum,” emphasizing the Court’s duty to do complete justice. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure a fair and expeditious trial. The Court emphasized the importance of a joint trial. This was to address the criminal conspiracy charges effectively. The Court also noted the procedural errors. These errors had led to the fragmented prosecution. The Court was also concerned about the delay in the case. The need to uphold the rule of law and ensure complete justice also weighed heavily on the Court’s mind.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasoning
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need for a Fair and Expeditious Trial | 30% |
| Importance of a Joint Trial | 25% |
| Procedural Errors by Lower Courts | 20% |
| Delay in the Case | 15% |
| Upholding the Rule of Law | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court rejected the argument that its powers under Article 142 were limited by Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court stated that Article 142 allowed it to do complete justice. The Court also stated that there was no need for a de novo trial.
The Court emphasized that the accused persons had the right to recall witnesses for cross-examination. The Court also stated that the right to recall should not be used to protract the trial.
The Court stated:
“The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it…”
“By Article 142, as has been held in the State of Punjab judgment , equity has been given precedence over law.”
“In the present case, crimes which shake the secular fabric of the Constitution of India have allegedly been committed almost 25 years ago.”
The Court’s decision was unanimous. There were no dissenting opinions. The Court found that the CBI’s conduct in not pursuing a joint trial had caused great confusion. The Court also noted the technical defects that were not cured by the State Government.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court’s order for a joint trial has several key implications:
- Consolidation of Proceedings: All accused persons will now be tried together. This will streamline the legal process.
- Expedited Resolution: The joint trial is expected to lead to a more efficient and quicker resolution of the case.
- Comprehensive Justice: The Court’s decision aims to ensure complete justice by addressing all aspects of the case in a unified manner.
- Emphasis on Rule of Law: The judgment underscores the importance of upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all accused are tried fairly.
- Use of Article 142: The Court’s invocation of Article 142 highlights its power to take necessary actions to ensure justice, even when procedural hurdles exist.
The Supreme Court’s order is a significant step towards resolving a long-standing and complex legal battle. The joint trial is expected to provide a more comprehensive and cohesive resolution to the Babri Masjid demolition case.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s order for a joint trial in the Babri Masjid demolition case is a landmark decision. The Court has taken a decisive step to consolidate proceedings and ensure a comprehensive resolution. The judgment highlights the importance of upholding the rule of law and doing complete justice.
The Court’s use of Article 142 demonstrates its commitment to ensuring that justice is not hindered by procedural technicalities. The decision underscores the need for a fair and expeditious trial. This will help bring closure to a case that has been pending for many years.
The case also highlights the importance of proper consultation with the High Court. The failure to consult had led to procedural errors. The order also provides a template for dealing with complex cases involving multiple accused and charges.
Source: Supreme Court Orders Joint Trial