The Supreme Court on Monday admitted a petition by additional sessions and district judge SK Yadav, hearing the Babri Masjid demolition criminal cases against senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders and kar sevaks, challenging a stay on his promotion by Allahabad high court.
Seeking response from the Uttar Pradesh government on the issue of Yadav’s promotion, a bench of justices RF Nariman and Indu Malhotra also sought reply from the additional sessions judge of a Lucknow court on how he intended to complete the trial in the December 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case by the April 2019 deadline.
The Supreme Court had in April 2017 revived conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others and transferred the case from from Rae Bareilly and clubbed it with a similar case in Lucknow.
While the Rae Bareilly case pertained to the role of BJP leaders making provocative speeches and inciting the mobs, the Lucknow case related to the role of kar sevaks in the demolition of Babri Masjid. The court also directed day-to-day hearing in cases relating to the demolition and said “that there shall be no transfer of the judge conducting the trial till the trial concludes.”
Yadav, in his petition, complained that because of a SC order restraining the transfer of the Ayodhya Matters judge “till the entire trial concludes” by April 2019, he is being denied promotion to the position of a district judge. In his petition, Yadav argued that in June 2018, the Allahabad high court appointed him as district judge, Badaun, on promotion. But the appointment was stayed the same day by the high court citing the 2017 SC order that prohibited the same.
{{/usCountry}}Yadav, in his petition, complained that because of a SC order restraining the transfer of the Ayodhya Matters judge “till the entire trial concludes” by April 2019, he is being denied promotion to the position of a district judge. In his petition, Yadav argued that in June 2018, the Allahabad high court appointed him as district judge, Badaun, on promotion. But the appointment was stayed the same day by the high court citing the 2017 SC order that prohibited the same.
{{/usCountry}}Yadav argued that the SC order was causing prejudice to his career prospects. “The applicant is approaching superannuation and at the end of his career, while his juniors and batch mates have been appointed as district judges, the applicant has been denied promotion causing serious prejudice to him,” Yadav’s petition said.