Is it too early for the Sangh to celebrate?

Is it too early for the Sangh to celebrate?
MANOJ MITTA

NEW DELHI, FEB 13: The BJP claims that the high court order `exonerates' the three ministers. The VHP says the order vindicates the Prime Minister's statement that the construction of the temple is a `national sentiment.' In fact, the court does no such thing.

For, the court made a distinction today purely on a technicality. This is because for the same demolition, the police registered two separate FIRs on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya. The first FIR (No 197/92) was against unnamed Kar Sevaks while the second (No 198/92) was against the eight persons including L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati.

The CBI conducted a common investigation into the two FIRs. And in October 1993, the state government notified the formation of a special court for the demolition case and the CBI filed a chargesheet before it. The chargesheet arraigned not only named the eight persons in the second FIR but also 40 others on the basis of the first FIR.

The Allahabad high court today said that trial could be held, as of now, only on the first FIR. The reason: the court said that the prosecution was required to take the permission of the high court chief justice every time it wanted to refer a case to the special court. The prosecution took the chief justice's permission only once, when the first FIR was referred to the special court. Since there was no mention of the second FIR in that notification, the high court held that the prosecution cannot proceed against the eight leaders named by it.

This, therefore, is only a temporary reprieve to the three ministers as the high court clarified that the `defeat' in the notification is `curable'. In other words, all that the government has to do now is to seek the chief justice's permission regarding the second FIR as well and then issue a fresh notification on that basis.

Legal experts feel that the corrective action suggested by the high court is but a formality. ``The high court's guideline has the moral force of an order,'' says R M Tiwari, a noted criminal lawyer who secured the conviction of P V Narasimha Rao and Buta Singh in the JMM case. ``The government cannot exercise its discretion in a manner which will raise a finger of suspicion against it.''

The government which will have to rectify the defect in the case is the BJP administration in Uttar Pradesh. Legally, the CBI is only acting on behalf of the state in the Ayodhya case.

Whatever its legal justification, the high court's order has created some anomalies with regard to the accused persons. While the three ministers have been given a reprieve, Bal Thackeray, who was nowhere near Ayodhya on that fateful day, is going to face trial for the demolition. This is because he has been implicated on the basis of the first FIR which covered the role of the Kar Sevaks, some of whom were Shiv Sainiks.