“Anti-social elements brought down the structure. The accused leaders tried to stop these people,” said the special judge, whose term had been extended for this verdict. The judge also said the audio and video evidence produced by the CBI did not establish conspiracy charges.

BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti were all acquitted of conspiracy charges in a landmark verdict that has evoked strong reactions across the country.

A trending hashtag “No one demolished Babri” is doing the rounds in social media. The hashtag is a reminiscent of a Hindi film “No one killed Jessica”.

Several politicians, actors tweeted about the verdict that came after 28 years.

AIMIM cheif Asaduddin Owaisi said the CBI special court’s verdict in the Babri Masjid demolition case marks a sad and black day in the history of Indian judiciary. Meanwhile Muslim Personal Law Board is likely to challenge the verdict in High Court.

Expressing the outrage Mr.Owaisi called it obnoxious. “This judgment satisfies the collective consciousness of hindutva and its followers and ideology.” He wondered how the court could state that there was no conspiracy in the matter. “Was it some sort of magic that on December 6 the masjid was demolished? Who called for the assembling of the people over there? Who made sure that they entered over there?” he said.

Meanwhile Muslim Personal Law Board is likely to challenge the verdict in High Court.

Congress leader Ahmed Patel called the verdict “shocking” and tweeted:

The Babri verdict is shocking, it goes contrary to principles of natural justice & even the SC’s observation

— Ahmed Patel Memorial (@ahmedpatel) September 30, 2020

Calling it a “complete travesty of justice”, Left leader Sitaram Yechury recalled how a Constitution bench headed by the then Chief Justice had called the demolition “an egregious violation of law”.

“A complete travesty of Justice. All charged with criminal conspiracy to demolish Babri Masjid acquitted. It self imploded? The Constitution Bench headed by then CJI had said that demolition was an “egregious” violation of law. Now this verdict! Shame,” Mr Yechury tweeted.

Activist lawyer Prashant Bhushan responded tweeting , “There was no mosque there . Justice in New India!”

There was no mosque there. Justice in new India! https://t.co/JdqfgWqzLm

— Prashant Bhushan (@pbhushan1) September 30, 2020

Actor Swara Bhasker tweeted in Hindi saying, “The Babri Masjid fell on its own.”

Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani shared a photo of two magazines, then and last year, about the Babri Masjid and tweeted: “1992 and 2019… And in 2020: today, actually no one demolished #BabriMasjid. Like Kapil Mishra is in reality a great messenger of peace, Babri demolition and Rath Yatra was in reality just a fake news. All media stories before 2014 was fake news, only post-BJP media is truth (sic).”

1992 and 2019…
And in 2020: today, actually no one demolished #BabriMasjid.
Like Kapil Mishra is in reality a great messenger of peace, Babri demolition and Rath Yatra was in reality just a fake news. All media stories before 2014 was fake news, only post-BJP media is truth. pic.twitter.com/HbMnbjYnBm

— Jignesh Mevani (@jigneshmevani80) September 30, 2020

Actor Richa Chaddha tweeted in Hindi: “There is a court above this place, where there is light and not darkness.”

The post No one demolished Babri appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Khurshid’s name appeared in the disclosure statements of accused Khalid Saifi as well as former Congress councillor Ishrat Jahan

The 17,000-page chargesheet, filed on September 17, contains a statement from a witness saying: “Umar Khalid, Salman Khurshid, Nadeem Khan,Prashant Bhushan… they all used to give provocative speeches (at anti-CAA/NRC sit-ins in Delhi) and people used to get mobilised.”

The police have not mentioned the exact nature of the alleged provocative speeches. The identity of the witness has been concealed by the police (known as a protective witness). The police claims the witness was part of the core team of conspirators accused of plotting the riots.
The statement has been recorded before a Magistrate (under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure or CrPC), giving it greater legal weight.

“If you do garbage collection, you get a lot of filth. Any garbage can be put to support statements made by individuals. I would be intrigued to know what a provocative statement is,” the 67-year-old senior Congress leader said, responding to the allegations.

Mr Khurshid is the highest ranking politician named in police chargesheets so far. The police have come under criticism for using the riots probe to target critics of the government, as well as prominent figures from the anti-CAA/NRC movement.

Northeast Delhi saw violent communal clashes on February 24 between citizenship law supporters and protesters that lead to mass violence, leaving at least 53 people dead and at least 200 injured.

The post Delhi riots chargesheet: Khurshid, Prashant Bhushan named by accused for ‘provocative speeches’ appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

This situation came up as the result of the undue haste in which the judiciary exercised its right to file cases voluntarily on the basis of media reports. Prashant Bhushan’s remarks were not, in fact, personal criticisms of judges. In two of his tweets, he pointed to the damage done to the credibility of the Supreme Court and the dignity of the Chief Justice. His critique was of the devaluation of the title of Chief Justice. But the apex court erred in seeing it as an allegation against a person holding the post of Chief Justice. Then we witnessed the Supreme Court continuing to err.

The bench, which had criticised Prashant Bhushan for insulting the judiciary in the country, later changed its stance several times. Justice Arun Mishra ruled that the case should be transferred to another bench as he did not have time to hear it. The Supreme Court has said it will close the case if Prashant Bhushan apologises. With Prashant Bhushan making it amply clear that he was not ready to apologise, the Supreme Court was caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. Despite the court allowing Prashant Bhushan time to apologise, he stood firm on his stand. Prashant Bhushan had unequivocally stated that an apology was tantamount to backtracking on his views and therefore there was no question of apologising even if he was given the maximum punishment. The question by the Supreme Court bench of whether an apology was a mistake was greeted by trolls on social media. In the end, the Supreme Court saved its skin by handing out the ridiculous verdict of Re.1 fine.

The bench had said that the reason for filing the case voluntarily was that Prashant Bhushan’s questioning the dignity and credibility of the Supreme Court could not be accepted. But the dramatic twists and turns during the trial of the case have further shaken the prestige and credibility of the Supreme Court. The case will be remembered as an outburst of narrow-mindedness and intolerance by the apex court.

Prashant Bhushan’s stand in defence of freedom of expression is commendable. He succeeded in showing the judiciary how tainted it was. Unwilling to water down his stance, he garnered the support of those who argue for democracy across the country.

The post Supreme Court’s hollowness exposed appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

“Freedom of speech cannot be curtailed,” said the Supreme Court while handing down the sentence, referring to “sane advice” from Attorney General KK Venugopal to the court and to Prashant Bhushan.

The judgment drew instant reactions from members of the legal fraternity and politicians, most of whom praised the top court for letting off the lawyer-activist with a “token punishment”.

“Without commenting on the merits of the case, the court has shown maturity. It would have been better if he had been forgiven. Court could have given him warning also but this is the best scenario. But this is a symbolic punishment, the minimum prescribed in the law. Court wanted to show majesty of law is Supreme and some punishment had to be given once found guilty. The punishment of Re 1 is token punishment and the rest are default clauses,” former Chief Justice of India Justice RM Lodha said.

The post Prashant Bhushan fined Re. 1 for contempt of court appeared first on The Gulf Indians.

Attorney General KK Venugopal reiterated his appeal to the apex court to take a “compassionate view” and forgive Bhushan. However the court said the lawyer has not apologised yet and has even made unfavourable remarks in the affidavit filed in his defence.

Venugopal had urged the top court last week as well to spare Bhushan from any harsh punishment.
The bench then sought views of senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, counsel for Bhushan, on punishment to be awarded in the contempt case. Dhavan said judgment convicting Bhushan should be recalled, no sentence be imposed on him.

“Please do not make Prashant Bhushan a martyr. After Babri Masjid was demolished, there were crowds to welcome Kalyan Singh. So don’t make him a martyr,” he said.

“Not only the Bhushan contempt case be closed, the controversy should be put to end. SC should give statesman like message,” he added.

To this, Justice Mishra replied, “I am not criticising Mr Bhushan…There is a difference between a court officer and a politician…if you are going to press for everything, you are identifying with the former more.”

Meanwhile, a new Supreme Court bench will hear the 2009 contempt case against Bhushan from next month as Justice Arun Mishra retires in the first week of September. The bench headed by Justice Mishra said the matter will be listed before an appropriate bench on September 10 as they are ‘short of time’.

The post Prashant Bhushan: SC reserves verdict on quantum of sentence appeared first on The Gulf Indians.