|ɪɮVx nɺɨƶ (ɪMV) : ʴɹɪ ʨi *

... (ɴvx)

ֱɪɨ ʺƽ n : x E ɨlx xɽ M l* ɹ]{i V E ʱJE n +B l E ʤx i ɨlx n , Eɮ EVB*

... (ɴvx)

|ɪɮVx nɺɨƶ : ɽ ʴɹɪ ɽi ʨi * ɤɮ ʺVn Mɮx E ʱB Ex Vɨnɮ , Ex xɽ , <E >{ɮ Eɡ ɽ SE , < q {ɮ xɽ Vx Sɽi * {] E E {VҶx , +xn E + l, ɽ E + l, <E ʴɹɪ =E xɽ nx Sɽi * +nɱi E ʴɹɪ <ʱB ]{{h xɽ Ex Sɽi E nx E E< E xɽ , E< E xɽ , +nɱi E E ɱ M, E M, =E >{ɮ E< ]{{h Ex E* ʴɹɪ ɽi ʨi *

Vɤ {ɽ ɮ 1971 ɽ {ɽS i +nhҪ |vx j +] ʤɽɮ V{ V E ɹh, Sɽ ʴɮv {I , Sɽ iiɰg {I , Sɽ nx , ɽi <VVi E l, M E l xi l* <ʱB xɽ E .V.{. VxɺP , <ʱB E n E BE c xi , =xE xx SʽB* +V V{ V x ɨɪ ƺnҪ {ɮ{ɮ E |iɹ` E V i E, ɨɪ VxiE xiEi E V i E, Sɽ +ɨ Sxɴ ɦ , nx E +xn , n E Eij VxiE xiEi E ɺɱ {ɮ |iʹ`i V EU =nɽh , =xE qxVɮ Ji B < ʴɹɪ EU x Sɽi *

B < {ɮ x Sɽi , VɺE ɮ E |ɶx J 104 E +vɮ {ɮ xiɴɱ V E ɴɱ E Vɴɤ +bh V x EU ɪx n + |ɶx J 207 E +vɮ {ɮ 29 xɴɨɮ E < nx BE +ʱJi |ɶx E Vɴɤ ɮi ɮEɮ E Mɽ jɱɪ x Vɴɤ n* +{x ɮ ʴɹɪ = iE ʨi Jx Sɽi + |vx j V E nʹ] = E iɮ +Eʹi Ex Sɽi * E< EiMi Mֺ, E< +r x i +bh E >{ɮ , x ֮ x V V E >{ɮ + x ɽx = V E >{ɮ * M n E ƺn , n E xi , n E Eɮɮ =xE Mnɮ * =xE ɮ E< EiMi Ux Mx E i xɽ Ex +ɪ , {ɮ{ɮ E i E , VɺE +nhҪ V{ V x < n E, x< {g E ʺJɪ, Sɽ ʴɮv {] ` , Sɽ iiɰg {I ` * |ɶx J 207 E ɽ Vɴɤ ʨɱ* ɴɱ E l -

The question was about the present status of the Babri Masjid demolition case. The answer was : "Investigation in the Babri Masjid demolition cases by C.B.I. was completed on 5.10.1993 and a chargesheet was filed in the court of Special Magistrate, Ayodhya Prakaran, Lucknow on 5.10.1993 against 40 accused persons. After further investigation a supplementary chargesheet was filed against nine more accused persons in the said court on 11.1.1996."

ɽi xn Vɴɤ * nںɮ ɴɱ E l -

The question was about the number of special courts set up in Lucknow for the trial of the accused. The answer was : "Special courts are constituted. One court of Special Magistrate; another special court of Ayodhya Prakaran at Lucknow for the trial of the cases."

The next question was about the names of the persons arrested or granted bail. The answer was : "List enclosed."

=x 97 xi+ E, EɪEi+ E xɨ , Vxɨ +nhҪ Mɽ j V E xɨ , ɮ xɴ ƺvx ʴEɺ j E xɨ , ɽx = V E xɨ * <x M E xɨ * =E n E ɴɱ l?

The question was about the manner in which both the Central and State Governments are monitoring the cases.

=ɨ E Vɴɤ ? ɽi v + {ɹ] Vɴɤ , VɺE ʱB Mɽ jɱɪ E v< nx Sɽi * =xx ɡ-ɡ E* E E -

The answer was : "Special Judge, Ayodhya Prakaran has passed an order on 9.9.1997 - when they were not Ministers - holding that there is a prima facie case to frame charges against all the 49 accused persons. Against this, 33 accused persons have filed revision petitions in the Lucknow Bench of the Hon. High Court of Allahabad in October, 1997 which are being heard regularly."

They are continuing from 1997.

The answer further says : "The revision petitions are pending for disposal in the High Court. In the Trial Court pending disposal of the revision petitioners, the proceedings are being adjourned. A Special Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government of India to conduct the trial of these cases is attending the trial court and the High Court regularly."

<E +vɮ {ɮ +{E vɨ |vx j V ɨx BE ɴɱ Jx Sɽi * {ɱ E] x Vɤ |<ɡ SV Ex E ʱB +bǮ {ɺ E n E

there is a prima facie case to frame charges.

V{ V, +{E x E iʤE, +{E ɮ ƺnҪ |iɹ` E iʤE, E VxiE xiEi E +vɮ {ɮ ɽ EiǴ xɽ xi E Vɤ iE M <ɺ Ei x , iɤ iE E ii `E E {] E x] x E, EE ɮEɮ |E] B{<] Ei * iivɮ {I E +n ɮEɮ E ɤɺ c Eֺ ` + Jn =ɨ BEVb , i +{E


E xɡ] E bEɮx E iʤE ]ƺ{ƺ <x +ɱ ], E ɽ Vʺ]<b i ? ɴɱ <ix , <ɺ Vn xɽ * BE +nhҪ ɺn E xɨ x Sɽi , V < ɨɪ nx Vn xɽ * n E Jɨj {n E nxɱɱ J֮x V Ʀɱ l, =xE >{ɮ SVV Ex E ʱB E] E ɨx |<ɡ < xɽ l, ʺɡ


x SS Ex E ʱB <VVi M l, Ex =xE xiEi E +vɮ {ɮ iM {j nx {c* {U E ɦ +{E jɱɪ l V x +ʡ j l, ] ʺƽ V j l - E SVǶ] E < {ɮ <xE iM {j xɽ nx {c l? +Mɮ +{E ʽɤ < + = xiEi nɴ , i ɽ +{E ɱ , =ɨ nJɱ xɽ nx Sɽi * Ex nx E ɽ Vxx E +vEɮ , ]ƺ{ɮƺ E ɨɱ |Eڶx + x]ʮM E ɮ +{E E< ɱ Ex SʽB* M E ʶEɪi E l? Vɽ iE Mɽ j V E ɴɱ , Mɽ j V Jn ƺ B , E =xE iɮ =xE Vɴɤ nx =Si M? M ɨZi E =Si xɽ M, EE =xE + Vɴɤ ]{{h nx E<-x-E< <x֪ƺ Ei * =xE <ɺ SE x SʽB, Sɽ +{ =xE +xn JB ɽ JB, ɽ +{E ɱ * <ɨ ɮ nJɱ xɽ * EU E Ei , +{ x Ei =E `E Ei , Ex, +vI ɽn, n xɪɨ xɽ Ei - BE M i J֮x V E ʱB, BE ] ʺƽ V E ʱB, BE l V E ʱB + BE M M +bh V E ʱB* +Mɮ n E E xɪɨ M i , i ɽ +{E |iɹ` E ɴɱ + E< i xɽ *

<ʱB +{E uɮ Ex Sɽi , ɽ ɴɱ E< B xɽ E 6 nɨɮ E nx n +i * i ɽ E ɴɱ 6 nɨɮ E xɽ * <iiɡE 6 nɨɮ E xxҪ n xiɴɱ V E ]b ESx + Mɪ + < q {ɮ +xɺ]b ESx + Mɪ* =E +vɮ {ɮ nx M =` E Mɽ j V < ɮ q {ɮ x , EE BEVb * <ix Ex Sɽi , Vɽ iE BEVb E ɨɱ ,

These accused are column one accused and not column two accused.

<ʺɱB, +vI ɽn, |vx j V Vxx Sɽi , =xE ְ E ƺnҪ VҴx =xE VxiE {ɮ{ɮ, xiEi + ƺnҪ |iɹ` E ɮ V x , =E +vɮ {ɮ ɨZi E =xE uɮ Vɴɤ jɨb E < E E xMɮx x E VB*

nںɮ ɽi{h ɴɱ ɽ , E


E +{x +n n E ]-E] E ʱB Eʶɶ E? +E]ڤɮ, 1997 Ei , nMb V |vx j l + =xE Vx E n +{E ɮEɮ ʨɱ l, E ɮEɮ E iɮ E |ɪɺ + E <E E] E VB i֮xi ]ɪɱ Vɪ? <E Vɽ Vxi +ʴɶɺ {n , E E< ʨɱ-Mi i xɽ E ɮ E E Ji E n VB* x V q =`ɪ , ɽ EiMi { +bh V, EiMi { ֮ x V E Jɱɡ xɽ , Ex Vɤ <ix c SV ]ʱɶ + , i Vɤ iE xɹ{ii x , iɤ iE <xE {n {ɮ x `E xɽ M* V{ V, + iE E V +{E ְ x , ʴɮv {I ii {I , ɽ |ɶx = |iɹ` E +xn +i * ʺɡ <ix Ex Sɽi *

SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE (BOLPUR): Mr. Speaker, Sir, I thought we were here concerned with a very fundamental issue. Of course, we cannot, sitting here, decide about the merits of the pending matters. But so far as our political and factual assessment in the past is concerned, we stick to that, the Sangh Parivar is up to the neck in demolishing the Mosque. They may call it a dhancha, but why should all dhanchas be destroyed, in this country?

Sir, there have been people on that side, very highly placed functionaries of the Sangh Parivar, who have claimed credit for the demolition of the Babri Mosque. There are Parties who are represented here whose leaders have been openly saying that they have done, as it were, a great patriotic duty in demolishing that Mosque. Therefore, according to our assessment -- we have said it earlier, I need not elaborate -- the Sangh Parivar, including many of our Members sitting on that side and also people here by their callous negligence, if not, what should I say, maybe, passive collaboration have done this.

Sir, I remember, I was in Delhi on that day. I had rung up Shri Narasimha Rao, the then Prime Minister of India and also Shri S.B. Chavan, the then Home Minister and they all assured that all possible steps are being taken to prevent that. But then we saw what had happened. So, we cannot exonerate my friends sitting on the right side here today. I hope, they have realised the great folly and mistake, if it is a mistake, if not a complicity that they had committed.

Sir, but the issue today is a fundamental issue that factually there are cases pending. Mr. Prime Minister man wish it or not, they are pending. First of all investigation was completed as early as in 1993. That was within one year of that heinous act, what we call it as a black act, being committed. Investigation was completed on the 14th of October, 1993. It has been six years since then. Yesterday we heard in the Conference of the Chief Justices that they were for early disposal of the pending cases. The Chief Justice of India has issued a direction that every pending criminal case should be decided within one year. But even after six years after investigations had been completed and chargesheets filed, it has not been disposed of. It took four years for the special Judge to take up the matter and he has now found that there is a prima facie case in it. Against that, 33 out of the 49 people -- I do not know who these 16 persons are -- have gone on revision before the Lucknow Bench in October, 1997. Today we are in December, 1999. It has been said that the case is being regularly heard for over two years but no decision has been given. This is one of the classic examples of delay in criminal proceedings in our country.

Sir, the question that arise is, is the delay because of the highest functionaries that are involved in this case? Today we have got a very unseemly situation where the hon. Home Minister is dealing with the Ministry which is concerned with this litigation. Therefore, it is a case of almost a prosecutor and an accused ... (Interruptions)What is factually wrong in it?

Sir, there is one more very well-known saying -- I am sure, Shri Jethmalani will agree with me because he believes in transparency; he believes in certain morales. I accept his statement. He is a very respected member of the Bar -- that justice must not only be done but seen to be done. I am sure, he will not quarrel with this proposition.


SHRI SOMNATH CHATTERJEE : Thank you. That was expected of you although you are in that company. Therefore, the question is very fundamental. An accused person against whom a prima facie case has been found is occupying a very high office in this country and is sitting next to the Prime Minister of India in this House. Yesterday a point was taken that was he competent to answer questions about his own matter? This is a very fundamental issue. When

Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav -- against whom charges were filed -- was accused, all sections of the House demanded -- I also joined in that demand on behalf of my Party -- that he should forthwith resign from Chief Ministership.

Some examples have been given in this very House. Shri Lal Krishna Advani was applauded by the country when he decided, during the havala prosecution, that he will not seek public office or even contest election. Suddenly, after his party has come to power in the process, whatever that process is, he takes up a different attitude altogether! Not only that, he is bold enough to say, `I shall continue'. Well, by his action it seems he wants to say that he must continue in his position. I do not know if the Prime Minister is either helpless or is trying to do a good thing to his old colleague in his party.

What would be the position of an ordinary individual in this country in a similar situation? Will he be allowed to deal with a matter in which he himself is one of the accused? Can he have anything to do with the prosecution of such a case? This is the fundamental issue. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, Sir, I said in the meeting of leaders that you held, `Let the Prime Minister, as the head of the Government, come and tell us as to what the perception of this Government is on this impropriety; as to whether this type of mixing up of roles at the highest level is possible; as to why this case has taken six years' time after the charge-sheet was filed; and as to what is happening now? I do not know what is the role of the Government of India.

As I said at the beginning, I am not here to apportion blame. I am not here to hold anybody guilty of any crime. In fact I am not enjoying it per se that three of our distinguished colleagues on that side are accused in a case. I am not holding them guilty, nor can I do that. I would like to know what their conscience says. What does the conscience of the Prime Minister say in this matter?

Shri Dasmunsi spoke about the qualities of the Prime Minister. I am not questioning that. I was present in the House when Shri Vajpayee, a greatly fluttered person, came to the House on that day. I was present in the House on the 6th of December, 1992, and he entered the House almost as a broken person and said that he was sorry and that he regretted it. When he said that, it was appreciated by the country and by the House. Of course, in his own inimitable style he had retracted from that position later because of political compulsion. But at least for a while he felt that that was something very wrong. Today he is presiding over the affairs of this country. This is a serious case which is pending, which has tremendously tarnished the image of this country whether one admits or not. Today, after seven years, we are still groping in the dark. Today, by fortuitous events, the Home Minister, who is one of the prime accused, is deciding the fate of his own case.

Sir, propriety demands that the Prime Minister takes the obvious step. As Shri Mulayam Singh demanded, the hon. Ministers in question may respond adequately in this regard to this House. They once forced some of their colleagues like Shri Buta Singh and Shri Muthiah to give up their ministerships. Shri Khurana is not here. Maybe he has left to avoid the embarrassment this situation may cause to him. Once this House was not allowed to run for 12 days because there were serious allegations against Shri Sukh Ram. Now, because Shri Sukh Ram is sitting in their lap they treat him differently.

Different standards should not apply to different people in matters of public life. It is a question of propriety; a question of Constitution being held supreme; a question of strengthening people's faith in the democratic system. Because of a temporary majority they cannot ignore when propriety and credibility of the system is challenged. When it is done, it will be very sad day for the country. Therefore, I request that they rise to the occasion and do what is only proper thing to do.

ʶn + (+ɮ) : {E ɽ, +{x {] ɽVx ɨV {] E iɮ < < {ɮ x E ʱB Jc + * {] Vix ʽxn ExʱV E Jɱɡ , =ix ʺɨ ExʱV E Jɱɡ * ɽ {Ji ɪ E ʺɨ ʡE{ɮi + ʽxn ʡE{ɮi nx E Jɱɡ cx {cM* ʽxnֺix BE Eֱɮ ֱE * ɽ E BE ʡE{ɮi E gɴ n VBM i nںɮ ʡE{ɮi Jn--Jn Vɤi i Sɱ VBM* +V ɮiҪ Vxi {] < n ʺɡ <ʱB Vɤi E Sxn M x < ֱE ʺɨ ʡE{ɮi E n* ɽ +V ɤɮ ʺVn E VF * = {ɮ iɨɨ M <Vɽɮ + E * Ex E ɤɮ ʺVn E ɽni ʽxnֺix E ֺɱɨx E n {ɮ V VJ M , ɽ ɮ x ƺn E Ei + x E< nںɮ Ei * {ڮ nxɪ < +Vn Eֱɮ ֱE E nxɨ <* E Mɪ E ʺVn E ic E xn xx E Eɨ E V * ... (ɴvx)