National   

'Panel cannot probe Centre's role in masjid demolition'

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI JUNE 6. The Centre today sprang a surprise when it asserted before the Justice Liberhan Commission that it could not probe into the role of the Union Government in the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992, while dealing with the "sequence of events'.

Appearing for the Centre, senior counsel Lala Ram Gupta, assisted by Bhupender Yadav, maintained that as the role of the Union Government was not part of the terms of reference of the probe, the commission could not go into it. The terms of reference pertained only to the role played by the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, his Council of Ministers, officials, organisations and individuals and, hence, it could not probe into the conduct of the Centre.

Further, the commission also had no jurisdiction to go into the concepts of "secularism", "Hindutva" and "Hinduism", he said adding that while dealing with the sequence of events leading to the demolition of the "disputed structure", the commission should begin at least from 1855, if not from 1528, when the mosque was erected.

Mr. Gupta said the evidence on record was to be considered and appreciated by the commission in accordance with the parameters of the jurisdiction and the limitations placed on it and render the findings accordingly.

The commission should also take into account the fact the feelings, sentiments and faith that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya and the desire of every Hindu for construction of a Ram temple at the "disputed site".

Demolition `unfortunate'

Describing the demolition of the Babri Masjid as "unfortunate", counsel said the Centre at that time was monitoring the developments as it was getting "minute-to-minute" information; yet, it did not take any action to prevent the demolition.

If the Centre had wanted, it could have invoked Article 355 of the Constitution to ensure that the activities of the State were carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

He said on December 6, 1992, everything was peaceful till noon, when suddenly hundreds of kar sevaks started climbing the "disputed structure" and started demolishing it. The first dome fell at about 1.50 p.m.; the second at about 3 p.m. and the third at 5 p.m. Police or the security forces could not prevent the kar sevaks and effectively resist their onslaught. The then Chief Minister, Kalyan Singh, resigned at 5 p.m. and President's rule was imposed at 9 p.m. However, no paramilitary forces were sent for two days.

One reason, counsel said, could be the Centre's perception that the deployment of paramilitary forces would result in bloodshed, which would have repercussions not only in Ayodhya but also the rest of the country. Further arguments will continue on June 12.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• 'Panel cannot probe Centre's role in masjid demolition'
• Clarify stand on quota, says Congress
• Parties for immediate release of Suu Kyi
• Onset of monsoon likely in Kerala in a few days
• ICHR takes exception to 'violation of constitution'
• Vajpayee, Advani have same vision, says RSS
• New Cong. stance on coalitions welcome: CPI(M)
• RSS objects to Pope's 'remarks'
• CBI questions CBDT officials
• It will be difficult without Vajpayee, says Thackeray
• 'No request from India to overfly Pak. territory'

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu