With the Supreme Court invoking its extraordinary
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution — to pass decrees and
orders to ensure complete justice — in the case relating to the
demolition of the Babri Masjid, and reviving the
criminal conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar,
the CBI Special Court in Lucknow could not but have framed charges
against them. Over the last 24 years, poor investigation and weak
prosecution combined with inordinate judicial delays ensured they did
not have to stand trial for making provocative speeches that allegedly
incited kar sevaks to demolish the masjid. With the Supreme Court
ordering this case to be
clubbed with the one involving the actual demolition by unnamed kar sevaks, and directing day-to-day trials,
there is hope that the years of delay are over. India has a poor record
in finding speedy judicial resolution in instances of mob violence and
communal riots; in that sense, the Babri Masjid cases are perhaps
unexceptional. But given the historical importance of the case, and the
impact of the demolition on communal harmony, it is vital to see them
through to the end.
Both
Mr. Advani and Mr. Joshi are in the twilight of their political
careers, wielding little power or influence in the BJP. Ms. Bharti is,
however, a Union Minister, and the Narendra Modi government cannot
pretend that the development has no bearing on her continuance in the
Council of Ministers. The BJP has tended to underplay the significance
of the case on the ground that it is ‘political’ in nature. But this
simply does not wash as the revival of criminal conspiracy charges
against them was done at the instance of the Supreme Court. In
opposition, the BJP had been quick to demand the resignation of
ministers for much less than being chargesheeted. The argument that the
standards of propriety that apply in corruption cases are different from
those that apply in a criminal case of this nature is absurd. Even by
the lax standards of today’s political morality, it is important to draw
the line somewhere — and framing of charges is a good stage given that
it is a formal document drawn up by a court of law. Rather than defend
Ms. Uma Bharti, the Modi government would do well to consider the
example set by none other than Mr. Advani himself, who resigned as a
Member of Parliament in 1996 after he was implicated in the Jain hawala
case, in which the court later held that there was no material to frame
charges against him. For a government that makes much of standing for
probity in public life, the application of different standards to one of
its own is bound to damage its image. Ms. Bharti’s guilt or innocence
is for the courts to establish. Political propriety demands that she be
shown the door.
