English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Babri demolition case should have been settled before SC proceedings in Ayodhya title suit: Justice Liberhan

Published

8 years ago

on

Babri demolition case should have been settled before SC proceedings in Ayodhya title suit: Justice Liberhan

The Justice Liberhan commission of inquiry had indicted BJP stalwarts Atal Bihari Vajpayee, LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi for Babri Masjid demolition

Days before the Supreme Court begins its daily hearing in the long-pending and politically sensitive Ayodhya title suit case, Justice (retired) Manmohan Singh Liberhan, who had led a commission of inquiry that looked into the Babri Masjid demolition incident, has said that it would have been better had the trial in the demolition suit been disposed off first.

The demolition suit – in which charges of criminal conspiracy in demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on December 6, 1992 have been made out against BJP veterans LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati – has been gathering dust in a special CBI court in Lucknow since May 30 this year when the BJP leaders were charged. Interestingly, the Supreme Court had ordered the special CBI court to wrap up proceedings in this case within two years but little forward movement seems to have taken place in the past six months since Advani, Joshi and Bharati were charged of criminal conspiracy.

In an interview to the Indian Express newspaper, Justice Liberhan has said that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear a bunch of petitions appealing against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit from December 5 onwards “will adversely affect the demolition suit”.

It is pertinent to note that the demolition suit is based largely on findings made by the Justice Liberhan Commission of Inquiry, which had in its report submitted in June 2009 held that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was “meticulously planned”. The Justice Liberhan report – as the commission’s findings are now popularly known as – had indicted former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, BJP veterans LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi as “pseudo moderates” and claimed that they were “ideological and intellectually” responsible for the Babri Masjid demolition on December 6, 1992. The report had added that though Vajpayee was not present at the Babri Masjid site when it was demolished, it cannot be assumed that he, along with Advani and Joshi, did not know about the designs of the Sangh Parivar which obviously wanted to raze the mosque to the ground.

Clearly unhappy about the Supreme Court’s decision to begin daily hearings in the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit from December 5 while the demolition suit against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and other BJP-RSS leaders and workers gathered dust, Justice Liberhan asked: “what is the point of this”.

“If it is decided that it is Wakf property, then one side is established as guilty of demolition. And if the Hindu sides get it (the Ram Janmbhoomi title), then the act of demolition becomes seen as ‘justified’ — to reclaim own property. This demolition is known to people alive and must be decided first. They (the Lucknow special CBI court) can take a few weeks or months to do it,” Justice Liberhan was quoted as saying by the Indian Express.

The 79-year-old retired judge also found fault with the verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit which is now in appeal in the Supreme Court. “The Allahabad High Court decision is not the answer. A decision had to be made on the title suit of the property and they went and partitioned the land,” said Justice Liberhan, who had served as chief justice of the Madras and later Andhra Pradesh High Court before retiring from the judiciary.

The Allahabad High Court had, in a largely controversial verdict delivered in 2010, divided the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya between the main deity Ram Lalla, Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. The verdict had been criticised by several legal eagles and politicians, aside from the parties in the case, for having adjudicated a title suit on the basis on faith and not law.

Liberhan says that the ruling party as well as the Opposition today are both indifferent to the circumstances under which the Babri Masjid was razed. “None of the political parties today want to do something or even genuinely feel like they should do something on the demolition of the Babri Masjid. They just want to encash it in their own ways. In the present political environment, even the philosophical idea of imagining the so-called secular society is not there, it is just limited to sloganism (sic),” he was quoted as saying.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

DU VC Prof Yogesh Singh entrusted with additional charge of AICTE Chairman

Published

8 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Prof. Yogesh Singh, Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, has been entrusted with the additional charge of the post of Chairman, AICTE till the appointment of a Chairman of AICTE or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

It is noteworthy that AICTE Chairman Prof. TG Sitharam was relieved of his duties after his term ended on December 20, 2025. According to a letter issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, on Monday, Prof. Yogesh Singh’s appointment is until the appointment of a regular AICTE Chairman or until further orders whichever is earlier.

Prof. Yogesh Singh is a renowned academician with excellent administrative capabilities, who has been the Vice-Chancellor of University of Delhi since October 2021. He has also served as the Chairperson of the National Council for Teacher Education. In August 2023, he was also given the additional charge of Director of the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA).

Prof. Yogesh Singh served as the Vice-Chancellor of Delhi Technological University from 2015 to 2021; Director of Netaji Subhas Institute of Technology, Delhi from 2014 to 2017, and before that, he was the Vice-Chancellor of Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda (Gujarat) from 2011 to 2014. He holds a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering from the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra. He has a distinguished track record in quality teaching, innovation, and research in the field of software engineering.

Continue Reading

India News

Goa nightclub fire case: Court extends police custody of Luthra brothers by five days

A Goa court has extended the police custody of Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra, owners of the nightclub where a deadly fire killed 25 people, by five more days.

Published

9 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

Luthra brothers

A court in Goa on Monday extended the police custody of Saurabh Luthra and Gaurav Luthra, the owners of the Birch by Romeo Lane nightclub, by five more days in connection with the deadly fire incident that claimed 25 lives on December 6.

The order was passed as investigators sought additional time to question the two accused in the case linked to the blaze at the Anjuna-based nightclub.

Owners were deported after fleeing abroad

According to details placed before the court, the Luthra brothers had left the country following the incident and travelled to Thailand. They were subsequently deported and brought back to India on December 17, after which they were taken into police custody.

Advocate Vishnu Joshi, representing the families of the victims, confirmed that the court granted a five-day extension of police custody for both Saurabh and Gaurav Luthra.

Another co-owner sent to judicial custody

The court also remanded Ajay Gupta, another owner of the nightclub, to judicial custody. Police did not seek an extension of his custody, following which the court passed the order, the victims’ counsel said.

The Anjuna police have registered a case against the Luthra brothers for culpable homicide not amounting to murder along with other relevant offences related to the fire incident.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice to Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi in National Herald case

Delhi High Court has sought responses from Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on the ED’s plea challenging a trial court order in the National Herald case.

Published

11 hours ago

on

December 22, 2025

By

The Delhi High Court has sought responses from Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the National Herald case. The petition challenges a trial court order that refused to take cognisance of the agency’s prosecution complaint.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja issued notices to the Gandhis and other accused on the main petition, as well as on the ED’s application seeking a stay on the trial court’s December 16 order. The high court has listed the matter for further hearing on March 12, 2026.

The trial court had ruled that taking cognisance of the ED’s complaint was “impermissible in law” because the investigation was not based on a registered First Information Report (FIR). It observed that the prosecution complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was not maintainable in the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence.

According to the order, the ED’s probe originated from a private complaint rather than an FIR. The court further noted that since cognisance was declined on a legal question, it was not necessary to examine the merits of the allegations at that stage.

The trial court also referred to the complaint filed by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the summoning order issued in 2014, stating that despite these developments, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) did not register an FIR in relation to the alleged scheduled offence.

The ED has accused Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, late Congress leaders Motilal Vora and Oscar Fernandes, Suman Dubey, Sam Pitroda, and a private company, Young Indian, of conspiracy and money laundering. The agency has alleged that properties worth around Rs 2,000 crore belonging to Associated Journals Limited (AJL), which publishes the National Herald newspaper, were acquired through Young Indian.

The agency further claimed that Sonia and Rahul Gandhi held a majority 76 per cent shareholding in Young Indian, which allegedly took over AJL’s assets in exchange for a Rs 90 crore loan.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com