SC notice to Advani on Babri
In a move that could potentially revive the Babri demolition debate, the Supreme Court on Friday asked BJP leaders LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray and others to state their stands on the CBI plea to restore the criminal conspiracy charges against them.delhi Updated: Mar 05, 2011 01:19 IST
In a move that could potentially revive the Babri demolition debate, the Supreme Court on Friday asked BJP leaders LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, Shiv Sena supremo Bal Thackeray and others to state their stands on the CBI plea to restore the criminal conspiracy charges against them.
A bench of Justice VS Sirpurkar and Justice TS Thakur issued notices to the leaders, as the CBI challenged the Allahabad high court order that had quashed the charges. The court asked the respondents to file their replies in four weeks.
Solicitor general Gopal Subramanium questioned the legality of the HC verdict that upheld a special CBI judge’s decision to discharge the leaders.
On December 6, 1992, a political rally of the BJP and its allied organisations turned violent and led to the demolition of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh, as they claimed that the mosque was built in 1527 at Ram’s birthplace.
The organisers of the rally had given a commitment to the SC that the mosque would not be harmed. More than 2,000 Muslims were killed in riots that followed in major cities, including Mumbai and Delhi.
Politically, the issue has by now lost steam, but the BJP hopes that the SC order may bring it back into news. “Let it come. We’ll see in court,” said a BJP leader.
It is crucial for the Congress, too, since the party needs Muslim votes in UP in the early-2012 polls. What’s more, the community has a strong numerical presence in Assam, West Bengal and Kerala, which are going to the polls very soon.
Other accused were Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Vinay Katiyar and Sadhvi Rithambara, among others. The CBI said, “The trial court erroneously came to the conclusion that 21 persons were not entitled to be tried in the case.”