SC reserves verdict on Ayodhya trial

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgement on the petition seeking review of its ruling on allowing trial of cases related to Ayodhya demolition before two separate courts at Rai Bareli and Lucknow.

The petition to re-examine the apex court verdict of November 2002 was filed by Mohd Aslam alias Bhure, who had also approached the court before the demolition of the disputed structure.

After questioning the locus standi of the petitioner for approaching the court, a Bench of Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice G P Mathur and Justice R V Raveenderan reserved its verdict on the petition seeking review of the judgement upholding the U P Government's stand to conduct the trial at Rai Bareli and Lucknow.

In the matter which was heard at length after almost a year, CBI and the petitioner submitted that the trial of the two set of cases be conducted together at Lucknow as a consolidated chargesheet was filed.

Two cases were registered in connection with demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

In the first FIR, after investigation, 39 people were named as accused, the trial of which is being held in a Lucknow court while the second FIR had the names of eight VVIPs as accused, including senior BJP leaders L K Advani, M M Joshi and Vinay Katiyar, expelled BJP leader Uma Bharati, VHP leaders Ashok Singhal and Vishnu Hari Dalmiya and Sadhavi Ritambhara.

The Rai Bareli court had in September, 2003 quashed the charges against Advani while deciding to proceed against the other seven persons.

Bhure's counsel O P Sharma and Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramanian, appearing for CBI, narrated how the two set of cases were committed for trial before the separate courts at Rai Bareli and Lucknow.

They submitted that the case involving the VVIPs had to go for trial before the Rai Bareli court as the Allahabad High Court quashed the notification for holding the trial of all the cases relating to the demolition at Lucknow.

They said the notification was quashed by the Single Bench on the ground that the High Court was not consulted before issuing it.

Following this, the Bench said for redressal of their grievance, the concerned parties should have moved the High Court.

CBI has taken a stand that since the two cases registered arise from the same incident of demolition and a consolidated chargesheet having been filed, it would be in the interest of justice that both cases be tried together at Lucknow.