Court's cleanchit

It nearly took three decades for the honourable CBI court to pronounce verdict on Babri Masjid demolition case. Prominent right-wing leaders LK Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi and other netas' were under the radar for their alleged roles in stimulating the communal tension. The Liberhan committee which studied the Babri Masjid demolition and the riots found these leaders responsible for the riots. However, the CBI court thought otherwise and all the leaders were set free of their charges after 28 years of legal battle. 

What happened in these years? A lot of witnesses are no longer alive to give their testimonies in the court. India's political landscape changed dramatically. We are ruled by a national party which has endorsed the construction of Ram Temple. 

Age of information 

This is an age of information. People have the power to examine facts on their own capacity.  In other words, they make their own judgements. This is people's law and it is shaped by public opinion. 

However, court's rule of law is not similar to public wish. It may not represent public opinion. They look after the material evidences and statements of witnesses before arriving at a conclusion. 

CBI court verdict

The court verdict which acquitted all the accused in the demolition case due to unavailability of strong evidence met with rapid outrage from the Netizens and mainstream media alike. 

It is not sure whether the CBI court was conclusive in acquitting the right-wing leaders. The bench questioned the authenticity of the visual evidence but it is not known whether they examined all the video materials that are out there open in public. 

My take

The fact that the CBI bench did not found anything objectionable in the speeches made by prominent leaders of the national party appear surprising to my logic. During Shaheenbagh protest, public activists, students, intellectuals were charge-sheeted based on video evidence and WhatsApp conversations which were not filed by the lawyers but by the court. The Supreme Court bench while hearing Anti CAA protests had suo moto accepted WhatsApp/social media clips as material evidence. But why is it different here?

Peace broker

A reaponsible court never endorses the idea of violence and would do its best to safeguard peace and communal harmony in the country. Did the CBI court issue clean chits to the accused to not let the court verdict result in more chaos? 

If this was the scenario, the court's mediative step is fundamentally detrimental to the law of natural justice that the accused should be held guilty at any cost. Does it set a wrong precedent of letting the criminals not paying a price for their punishable offence? I think so. 

BJP's stance

BJP's national spokesperson Rajiv Chandrasekhar in a newspaper article welcomed the court verdict and urged all to accept the ruling in the spirit of unity and peace. He echoed the party sentiment that it is unnecessary to drag the BJP government as CBI submitted its evidence much before Narendra Modi government assumed power. BJP alleges that the party and their members were wrongly targeted by Congress leaders for secular vote gain and the verdict is a jolt to Congress's divisive politics.

What next      

The major opposition parties and several religious organisations have already expressed shock and concern on the verdict. The legal battle may continue if any of the opposing parties/individuals file an appeal petition.

Meanwhile, the onus is also on the court to make their position clear on their verdicts on controversial judgements considering  public interest surrounding the issue. After all, we are citizens in a democracy. Judicial powers are not above the collective strength of vigilant and responsive citizens.