STATING THAT it will have to “step in” to “do complete justice in a matter like this”, the Supreme Court Thursday said it was considering putting BJP leader L K Advani and others on a joint trial with ‘kar sevaks’ in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case under various charges, including criminal conspiracy to pull down the disputed structure. As it reserved its order on the CBI’s appeal against dropping conspiracy charges against BJP leaders, including Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, a bench of Justices P C Ghose and Rohinton F Nariman also signalled that the apex court was mulling the idea of directing the special judge in Lucknow to conclude the joint trial within two years. “We can do it like this.we can transfer the trial at Rae Bareli (against Advani and others) also to Lucknow and there could be a joint trial of both the cases.we can do it using our powers under the Constitution. When there was one conspiracy, why should there be separate trials? It has been going on for almost 25 years now. We may ask the HC to designate a judge who can conduct a time-bound trial so that it can finish in two years,” said the bench. The court said: “We have to do complete justice in a matter like this. We cannot let technical defects come in the way (of justice).this technical defect has to be got over with. Here we are faced with a situation where there is evasion of law on one side and evasion of justice on the other.” The bench also questioned why 13 other BJP leaders, including Rajasthan Governor Kalyan Singh, did not face trial and got away after the High Court had affirmed a decision that the CBI could not conduct a joint trial of these leaders with ‘kar sevaks’ without its sanction. After the High Court decision, Advani and others faced trial at a Rae Bareli court for instigating the mob, while ‘kar sevaks’ faced charges of conspiracy and for demolition of the disputed structure at a special court in Lucknow. But Singh, along with 12 others, were let off after the Lucknow court allowed their applications for their exoneration of conspiracy charge while no separate charges were pressed against them at Rae Bareli. Representing the CBI, Additional Solicitor General N K Kaul said the CBI was of the opinion that the 13 accused, which included Kalyan Singh, “could not go scot-free” because of this technical lapse and that “they must be tried somewhere”. About revival of conspiracy charges against Advani and others, the CBI maintained that they could be tried for conspiracy even without pressing for separate charges in Rae Bareli since the chargesheet at Lucknow court has included this charge. Therefore, it said, all the accused would be covered because the “incident was one arising out of the same cause of action”. Kaul, however, said the agency was not taking any stand on the joint trial since it was concerned only about revival of conspiracy charges. Appearing for Advani and Joshi, senior lawyer K K Venugopal opposed the idea of joint trial and contended that not only was this not permissible under the CrPC but it also would take away one right of appeal from the accused since the leaders were being tried by a magisterial court in Rae Bareli whereas a sessions court was trying the case at Lucknow. However, the bench said: “How can there be statutory restriction to our power? This court also has the powers under Article 139A (to transfer cases from one jurisdiction to another) to do so. It is a wider power than the technical restriction under the CrPC. The state government should have come out with a notification to correct this but it did not.” It told Venugopal that a time-bound joint trial will be good for the accused as well. “Why should any person carry the burden of charges for 25 years?” it said. But Venugopal said the order of joint trial would be “counter-productive” and added there was no evidence to show that the leaders conspired with “one lakh kar sevaks” to demolish the disputed structure. He added that even if the court were to decide that conspiracy charges should add up, there must be a fresh investigation and a complete re-trial with fresh examination of all witnesses at any of the two locations. The bench reserved the matter for its final order while asking the parties to submit written submissions by Tuesday.
