It was an appeal in a case connected with two complaints under our criminal law – we call it First Information Reports (FIRs) – lodged on the day of that fateful incident – 6th December 1992.

The first, report Crime No. 1997 of 1992 was against several hundred thousand Kar Sevaks (or artisans): unnamed. The report alleged against them offences of dacoity, robbery, causing hurt, injuring/defiling a place of public worship, promoting enmity between groups on grounds of religion – all offences under the Indian Penal Code.

The second, but the more important and the more significant was FIR No. 198 of 1992.

It was lodged against eight named persons – very important political persons – all conspirators in the offences previously described.

A special Court was set up to try these cases.

But by some quirk of circumstance the first set of cases – against the thousands of unnamed Kar Sevaks was, in accordance with law, duly committed to a Court of Session in Lucknow, but significantly (and somewhat in – explicably) not the second FIR lodged against the 8 important conspirators: they appear to have been overlooked by the Executive!

In 1993, the State Government of Uttar Pradesh where Ayodhya is located, amended its Notification to enable these eight important persons to be also tried by a Special Court in Lucknow. But, whether innocently or by design, there was then discovered a defect in the notification – a vital procedural defect – viz. that there had been no consultation with the High Court, a mandatory requirement of the law.

The consequence was that the Notification in FIR 198 (against the 8 important conspirators) was, in course of time, struck down.

Then again after some years a Special Judge at Lucknow passed an order stating: (I quote)

“There were two classes of accused – persons – the 8 leaders who were sitting or standing on a platform – exhorting the workmen to destroy the structure and the thousands of Kar Sewaks or the artisans doing the job entrusted to them.”

The Special Judge said that there was a prima facie case against all accused persons in both classes, and framed charges of criminal conspiracy under various sections of the Penal Code. The Court held that all offences were committed in the course of the same transaction which warranted a joint trial and that the case was exclusively triable by the Court of the Special Judge at Lucknow.

But again on a revision being filed in the High Court, the High Court (after considerable delay) discovered – another procedural lapse – viz. that the Special Court at Lucknow being a specially constituted Court had no jurisdiction to enquire into and to commit to the Court of Sessions, the eight accused in FIR 198 of 1992, and that the framing of charges against these 8 important persons (all conspirators) was without jurisdiction, and must be set aside.

Well – It was after almost a decade that the prosecuting agency woke up from its slumber, and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court, in April this year condoned the delay in the filing of the appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court, overruled all procedural objections invoking a unique provision in India’s Constitution – Article 142 – a provision that empowers the Supreme Court – and the Supreme Court alone – out of all the Courts in the country – to make any order in a proceeding brought before it that it thought necessary “ for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it ”.

Invoking this provision the Supreme Court said that this is a provision that gives preference to equity over law, and that permits a justice -oriented approach to the otherwise strict rigours of the law .

This Article 142 had no counter-part in the Government of India Act, India’s first Constitution Act passed by the British Parliament in the year 1935 – on which our written Constitution of 1950 was fashioned

In fact, Article 142 does not have any counter-part in any other Constitution the world over.

The Judges said: “The latin maxim fiat justitia ruat caelum is what first comes to mind on a reading of Article 142”: and then helpfully, translated the ancient Latin maxim into plain work-a-day English:

“Let Justice be done though the heavens fall”.

Quoting from the popular legal maxim, the Judges emphasised that it was not popular in the sense that people run after it – but it partakes (the Judges said) of that popularity which sooner or later “ never fails to do justice to the pursuit of noble ends by noble means .”

And so the charges framed against the 8 conspirators were revived and directed to be tried along with the charges already framed against the Kar Sevaks – the persons who did the actual job of breaking down the structure. The Supreme Court then handed down a list of peremptory directions, but not before noting a disturbing feature of the case, which was that the Special Judge designated by the State Government Notification to carry on the trial kept getting transferred which had considerably delayed the trial.

So peremptory directions were given to the following effect:

(1) the appeal of the CBI would be allowed;

(2) the judgment of the High Court which enabled FIR No. 198 to be quashed and buried would be set aside;

(3) both the FIRs were to stand transferred to the Session Judge of Lucknow with power to frame additional charges.

Then followed an even more peremptory set of instructions:

(a) the Court of Sessions after the transfer of proceedings to Lucknow and framing of additional charges would take up all matters within 4 weeks on a day-to-day basis until the conclusion of the trial;

(b) there would be no transfer of the Judge conducting the trial until the entire trial stood concluded;

(c) the case was not to be adjourned on any ground except where the Session Court found it impossible to carry on the trial on some particular date;

(d) CBI the investigating agency must ensure that on every date fixed for evidence, some prosecution witnesses would remain present and be examined;

(e) that the Session Court would complete the trial and deliver its judgment within a period of 2 years from the date of receipt of judgment of the Supreme Court;

Liberty was then given to the any of the parties to approach the Supreme Court in the event of the directions not being carried out “both in letter and in spirit”.

I am happy to tell you that the directions have been faithfully carried out, and the trial is actually proceeding on a day to day basis with several witnesses being examined and cross-examined every working day – giving us all hope that within the stipulated period the trial will be over and accountability will be ultimately ensured .

Having regard to this otherwise momentous, (but yet not a high-sounding) judgment delivered on 4th April, 2017, by the Supreme Court, I am also happy to tell you that faith in the rule of law has been restored .

Or shall I say (more accurately) – any expression of despair at the breakdown of the Rule of Law must be further suspended for a two year period with the foreseeable hope that Justice will be done – though the heavens may fall.

That ladies and gentlemen – in brief – is the present state of the Rule of law in India today.

What will ultimately happen, no one can predict.

The bright silver lining however is that it was only at the intercession of the highest court in the land that Justice may yet be achieved.

*****

Image Source – Satvik Varma Twitter page, Advani – Punjab BJP, Frederick – Wikipedia