New Delhi: A day after a special IWC court in Lucknow acquitted all 32 defendants in the Babri Masjid demolition case, including former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani, former Union Ministers Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, the Former Uttar Pradesh Prime Minister Kalyan Singh, newspaper editorials expressed concern over the ruling and pressured the CBI to challenge the verdict.
On Wednesday, the special court judge said the demolition was not planned in advance and that the defendants were “trying to stop the mob and not incite them.” It added that there was insufficient evidence against the defendants and that the court could not prove the authenticity of the audio and video evidence provided by the CBI.
This is what we are: The Telegraph
The Telegraph In Kolkata, the newspaper with gaudy headlines had long headed a half-page image of a donkey with the caption: “If we’re really surprised, this is who we are.”
The cover report, a full page covering the verdict and the commentary on the editorial pages were strong criticism of the trial.
An inside page of The Telegraph.
Black day of democracy: TOI
The times of India, the largest English newspaper in circulation in India, in an editorial published Thursday argued that failure to discover the “gross violation” of 1992 was “a black day for Indian democracy.”
Adding that the country’s record in prosecuting communal riots was “abysmal” and that the leaders of the riots were “rarely” brought to justice, the editorial argued that the CBI prosecution in the demolition case “failed”. and that the investigating agency must “examine his lack of documentary evidence.”
Noting the long duration it took for “the wheels of justice to turn” in India, he added that the high court must review “unacceptably long procedural delays affecting important cases.” “Such a long course does not bode well for the rule of law,” the editorial said.
Burning, broken, the idea of __: Mumbai mirror
Mumbai mirror, Another newspaper whose headlines frequently appear on social media tried to cite the twin examples of the hasty cremation and demolition of Hathras as a mark of the deterioration of democracy in India.
Two acts of desecration. Zero consequences! #India #Burning #Broken #Hathras #HathrasHorror #BabriDemolitionCase #BabriMasjid #BabriMasjidDemolitionCase #HathrasCase pic.twitter.com/s9dr1V7T5a
– Mumbai Mirror (@MumbaiMirror) October 1, 2020
An inordinate judgment: The Hindu
In a heavily written editorial, The Hindu It noted that the trial court had dismissed the Supreme Court’s observation that the demolition was a “flagrant violation of the rule of law” and that it had in fact “given legal standing to the ‘Ram Janmabhoomi movement’” by acquitting the accused.
“Their conclusions are drastic and defy logic and facts,” the editorial deliberately said of the court’s verdict, arguing that its conclusion that the demolition was not planned in advance “contradicts the entry of more than 100,000 volunteers into Ayodhya. That day, armed with crowbars, shovels, hoes and ropes. ”The leaders of the movement” had positioned themselves at strategic points “to celebrate the occasion, he also said.
The editorial also argued that the court had “sufficient evidence that there was a studied inaction on the part of the State” and “the unequivocal and open threats to the structure expressed by many of the protagonists of the movement.” Noting that while it is not easy to prove a conspiracy, the courts “must draw reasonable conclusions from the circumstances.”
That the CBI was unable to prove the conspiracy element and the details of the anticipated mobilization “is not a surprise,” the editorial said, criticizing the police investigation, which had been “tainted by botch” from the beginning.
“Even considering the possibility that the judiciary is in close alignment with the executive, it is unacceptable for a court to go so far as to parrot the deceptive theory put forward by the demolition squad,” the editorial said of the ruling. of the court that called the demolition a ‘spontaneous act’,
Finally, the editorial said that it was imperative that the IWC challenge the verdict given the serious implications the exoneration would have on “public confidence in the judicial system.”
“The cause of community friendship cannot afford successive judicial setbacks to both secular values and the rule of law,” he said.
Editorials in The Hindu (L) and The Indian Express (R).
The rule of law is at stake: The Indian Express
The Indian Express The editorial said the special court’s verdict “calls into question the facts and does not promise closure,” as the court has not held “anyone accountable or punished” at the end of a tortuous legal process. In addition, the editorial stated unequivocally that “the CBI must appeal the verdict so that the justice process can run its full course.”
Underlining that the “rule of law” was at stake, the editorial said that the demolition of the Babri masjid was a “moment of shame for a constitutional democracy.”
“Will the majority and the mafia have the right of way?” The editorial said, it was the key question that investigating agencies and the judiciary had to answer in the demolition case.
“How this question is addressed and answered will define a democracy’s commitment to due process,” the editorial noted.
No closure on this painful chapter in Indian history: The Hindustan Times
The editorial of The Hindustan Times He said the ruling, nearly three decades late, “raises more questions than it answers.”
That the verdict concluded that the evidence obtained by the CBI after years of investigation was “manipulated” and “could not be trusted” was, according to the editorial, an “indictment of India’s fragile criminal justice system.”
The Hindustan Times He also noted that the findings appeared “to contradict the findings of the 1992 Liberhan commission that blamed high-level political leaders for the event.”
The demolition of the mosque, the editorial said, was “a dismal moment” and one that, in many ways, Ayodhya and India have “advanced” due to the “impressive Ram temple” being built in Ayodhya. However, he added that the questions about the criminal investigation, the lack of accountability and the precedent set were “worrisome.”
.
