The Commission was constituted with the following terms of reference to enquire into the following issues:-
1. Sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the occurrence in the RJBM complex at Ayodhya on 6th December, 1992 involving the destruction of the RJBM structure.
2. The role played by the Chief Minister, Members of the Council of Ministers, Officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and by the individuals, concerned organizations and agencies in or in connection with the destruction of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure.
3. The deficiencies in the security measures and other arrangements as prescribed or operated in practice by the Government of Uttar Pradesh which might have contributed to the events that took place in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid complex, Ayodhya town and Faizabad on 6th December, 1992.
4. The sequence of events leading to, and all the facts and circumstances relating to, the assault on media persons at Ayodhya on 6th of December, 1992 and
5. Any other matter related to the subject of enquiry.
Preliminary observations:
The Commission took seventeen long years to present its final report. The Commission has cost the nation tens of crores of rupees. It has failed to come up to the expectations of the people. It has failed to dig out facts and serve the purpose for which it was constituted. The report appears to be the handiwork of a prejudiced mind that had made up his mind to give the report on a particular persons &/or institutions. The Commission seems to have decided beforehand to give a report of guilty to some individuals and organizations and to give a clean chit to others. In the process, the Commission has ended in exposing itself more than exposing the truth behind the episode. The report stands punctured with numerous contradictions and anomalies.
It is important to note that the Commission has rarely visited the spot where the alleged incident took place. Its report is paralyzed with the absence of detailed visit of Ayodhya and the fact that it has been written only in office. Further, the office of the Commission was declared by the Government of India to be in Lucknow, but he never functioned from there but from Delhi.
Went beyond the terms of reference:
1. The Commission in its report in Chapter No. 14 (Conclusions) on Page 942, Paragraph No. 166.8 says...."The much repeated and much denied remarks attributed to Govindacharya ----------------------
Comments: It is absolutely misplaced and irrelevant to the terms of reference. The alleged comments are also reported to have been made (and also denied) much after December, 1992.
2. At Page No. 958, Para No. 171, the Commission has listed, among others, the some persons as culpable, viz., Deoraha Baba, A.B. Vajpayee, Badri Prasad Toshniwal, Moropant Pingle, Onkar Bhave, Prof. Rajendra Singh, Gurjan Singh, G.M. Lodha, Champat Rai and so many others.
Comments: But all these persons were never called to defend themselves by the Commission. If there was any evidence or proof against any individual, then it was a legal and moral binding on the Commission to have called them to present their case and defend themselves. As a judge of High Court he should have known that this was a primary requirement for justice under the law of jurisprudence and nobody could be held guilty unless he was called to defend himself.
3. In this list, Commission has mentioned the name of Shri Pravin Togadiya also. On or before December 06, 1992, the sphere of activities of Shri Togadiya was limited to Gujarat only. And so, he was neither on the dais nor amongst the speakers of the day.
4. At Page 931, Para 162.2 Commission says: "There is no requirement that the media must be unbiased or independent or that it must not take sides"
Comment: Everywhere in the world in any form of govt. has anybody so far said that the media should not be free, fair, impartial and objective. The above comment of the commission ventures to promote a fourth estate that is unethical, irresponsible and not honest to itself.
5. At Page No. 935, Para No. 163.2 the commission says
"For instance, the intransigent stance of the High Court of Uttar Pradesh, the obdurate attitude of the Governor, the inexplicable irresponsibility of the Supreme Court's observer and the shortsightedness of the Supreme Court itself are fascinating and complex stories, the depths of which I must not plumb."
Comment: This is a highly irresponsible comment by the Chairman of the Commission who himself was a judge of the High Court. This unbecoming comment amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the Commission did not call the then Governor of Uttar Pradesh to appear before him. Yet, he made these disparaging remarks against the Governor. The Commission also failed to understand that he was only a judge of the High Court and a judge of the High Court has no right to comment on the Apex court, that is the Supreme Court.
Conspiracy
6. At Page 917, Para 158.9 the commission says
".........Prognosis of evidence leads to the conclusion that the mobilisation of the Karsevaks and their convergence to Ayodhya and Faizabad was neither spontaneous nor voluntary. It was well-orchestrated and planned......"
But, the same report states:-
At Chapter No. 1, Page No. 15, Para No. 7.4, the Commission states
..."...no evidence was lead or information provided to the Commission with respect to the conspiracy or pre-planning or the joint common enterprise by any of these counsels..." (of the Muslim organisations).
Of the above same chapter in Para 7.5, "......there was no effective participation on behalf of Muslims as a community or otherwise. No alternative theory or any version was put forth on behalf of the Muslims before the Commission..."
In the same paragraph 7.5, it states "...responsible educated literate citizens claiming to be the leaders of a particular community or the ones who participated in negotiations preceding the demolition etc. never came forward to disclose any material or fact in any form....."
At Chapter 10, page 775, para 130.5
"No documentary or direct evidence is possible in a conspiracy of this nature, nor unimpeachable and firm evidence of some action of planning of demolition was obtainable"
At page 782 para 130.24 commission says:
"....Home secretary Godbole stated that there was No information of planning and as such it could not be inferred that there was a conspiracy of the Congress & BJP for demolition,..."
Comment: Then, on what grounds, evidence and justification has the Commission come to the conclusion that it "was well-orchestrated and planned".
At the same time it needs to be taken note of the fact that after demolition of the alleged structure on December 06, 1992 three organizations namely RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal were banned through Government notifications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 on 10th December, 1992. As per the requirement of this Act, a Tribunal headed by Justice P.K. Bahri, the sitting Judge of Delhi High Court was constituted on 30th December, 1992. Being a constitutional body, after due trial, the tribunal delivered its verdict on 18th June, 1993 which has been published by the Government in official gazette (The Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section-II).
At Page 71 of this gazette, the tribunal holds "...It is pertinent to mention that PW-7 has categorically admitted that there was no material evidence to show that these associations had pre-planned the destruction of the disputed structure. It is admitted by PW-7 again that a video recording of the events which took place on the fateful day on December 06, 1992 at Ayodhya was prepared by the IB..."
On page No. 72 in the same verdict Justice Bahri states "...even the white paper prepared by the Central Government does not support this theory of pre-planning for destruction of the disputed structure by these associations or their workers..."
It is worth mentioning that PW-7 Mr. Padhi was a very senior officer of the Intelligence Bureau and authorised by the Government of India to present the case before the Bahri Tribunal.
The above facts clearly shows the prejudiced mind of the Commission which has written its report in a pre-meditated manner. Justice Bahri was a sitting judge of the Delhi High Court and the Tribunal he was heading, was a judicial body whose verdict was binding on the Government. On \the other hand, the report of the Liberhan Commission has no legal binding on the Government and is just recommendatory in nature which the Government may or may not accept.
The Commission seems to have been suffering from the same ailments which he mentions in Page No. 1, Chapter No. 1 (Introduction), Para No. 1.1 "...For some, the temptation of power is supreme. The usual means for acquiring power is through politics. There is always an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one's own purpose -- nothing matters beyond political desirable results, however achieved. In the process of acquisition of power the consequence of the process on the institution, the nation, individuals and society as a whole does not matter. Life itself becomes politicised. Objectivity or intellectual honesty or logic is lost in the process..."
Comment: His words apply more aptly to the Commission itself. Despite government orders and wish, he never functioned from Lucknow. He stuck to Delhi with "an urge and quest to use politics for acquiring power and for one's own purpose".
Supports Ramjanambhoomi
