And the case drags on

There are essentially two cases involving the Ayodhya dispute. One deals with the demolition of the Babri Masjid in which more than 45 have been accused, including Human Resources Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi, Sports and Youth Welfare Minister Uma Bharati and Home Minister L K Advani.All have been chargesheeted before the Special Court in Lucknow but the trial hasn’t begun since the accused have appealed to the High Court which is expected to hold its next hearing on July 9.

But it’s the other case, involving title suits, which is the messy one. In fact, many of these casesdate back decades, the original plaintiffs and defendants have died leaving their descendants to fight the case.

After 1,247 pages of affidavits and statements and 719 days of recording evidence, the title suits in the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute are still pending before the three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court.No one knows how long will it take before the final verdict. The Sunni Central Waqf Board, the plaintiff, has been pleading with the government for a special, dedicated bench that will hold hearings every day.

But with a BJP government at the Centre and at the state, headed by Kalyan Singh, who was convicted by the Supreme Court, not many Muslim organizations are confident. After all, it was during the talks in 1992 that the VHP had told the AIBMAC the question of handing over the site to the Muslims even if the verdict was in their favour “does not arise”.

In the title suits, the court started recording evidence presented by the Sunni Central Waqf Board on July 24, 1996. Thefirst witness was Mohammad Hashim whose cross-examination continued for over a month.

Since then, only 11 more witnesses have deposed before the full bench of Allahabad High Court. “We will present five to six more witnesses after which pro-temple organisations will present their 100-odd witnesses,” says Zafaryab Jilani, convenor of the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) who has been pleading the case.

After the cross-examination is over, arguments by the two parties will begin before the verdict is delivered. Both sides accuse each other for the delay. “None of the pro-mosque witnesses have anything substantial to submit which is why they are adopting delaying tactics,” says Hindu Mahasabha counsel Hari Shankar Jain.

However, Jilani has a different explanation: “They have seven teams of lawyers representing Paramhans, Nirmohi Akhada, Rajendra Singh, Dharam Das, Hindu Mahasabha, Umesh Kumar Pandey and Devaki Nandan Agrawal, who cross-examine our witnesses for days on end. This hasprolonged the case.”

For example, says Jilani, the first witness, Mohd Hashim, who submitted his five-page statement in only one day (July 24) was cross-examined till August 29 at such a length that it filled 192 pages. Similarly, other 11 witnesses too were cross-examined extensively delaying the case, he claims.

What is delaying things is the slow pace of the hearing. On an average, hearing takes place in the Allahabad High Court almost every month for four-five days. Sometimes, hearing does not resume on the scheduled date for some reason. The last hearing in the case was held on April 20 this year and the next date fixed for May 13. Once again, the date has been changed now to July 13.

Some may be tempted to clamour — as the UF did once — that the issue is sensitive; has been hanging fire for decades; and, therefore, the judicial process needs to be expedited. What better way to do this than to ask the Supreme Court to adjudicate? This is being opposed by Muslim organizations. Because if thesuits are transferred to the apex court, Muslims will be denied the right of appeal. And there’s no guarantee that the Supreme Court will agree to take on the cases.

In October 1994, the Supreme Court had refused to answer the Narasimha Rao government’s biased question: “Whether a Hindu temple or any religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the area on which the structure stood?”

Instead, the court ordered all suits to be revived and reverted to the Allahabad High Court.

1950 and still waiting

The Allahabad High Court is at present hearing the following four title suits filed decades ago:

1. JANUARY 16, 1950: Gopal Singh Visharad, an Ayodhya resident filed a petition in the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, pleading the right to worship the idols installed at Ramjanambhoomi (inside the Babri Masjid). Judge N N Chaddha granted interim injunction. Suit stillpending.

2. DECEMBER 17, 1959: Mahant Raghunath Das of Nirmohi Akhada, Ayodhya, filed a petition in the court of Civil Judge, Faizabad, pleading ownership of the disputed Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex. Several Muslim and Hindu organisations including VHP made defendants. Case still pending.

3. DECEMBER 18, 1961: Sunni Central Waqf Board, Mohammad Hashim and seven others, filed a petition in Faizabad Civil Court asking that the Babri Masjid be restored to them.

4. JULY 1, 1989: Deoki Nandan Agrawal, a retired High Court judge, filed a petition in Civil Court Faizabad on behalf of Lord Ram, pleading ownership of the disputed land and structure and permission to construct a new building place of the old and dilapidated one.

The case which was withdrawn:

5. DECEMBER 5, 1950: Mahant Paramhans Ram Chandra Das of Digambar Akhada filed a petition in court of Civil Judge, Faizabad against UP Government and five Muslims pleading right to worship the deity. Interimorder granted the same day. Suit withdrawn in 1990 due to “inordinate delay in getting a verdict because of lengthy judicial process.”