Conspiracy or coincidence?
» Commission ignored missing files of Ayodhya dispute » A manufactured document of deliberate commission and willful omissions » The report submitted in a haphazard manner has raised several legal questions » An official carrying important files died mysteriously » The fact of the missing files was not mentioned in the report » Neglect of the commission surely points towards a conspiracy Missing files, mysterious murder, manufacturing false evidence, fractured facts and sterile status – these are the admission, omission and commission of a tired and retired judge known as M S Liberhan. The completion of the inquiry into the Ram Janambhumi-Babri Masjid dispute at Ayodhya by the Liberhan Commission despite the fact that 23 vital files related to the dispute were missing has raised serious questions about the report. The Commission ignored the evidence related to the dispute and submitted its report in a haphazard manner, which has led to several legal questions and putting Justice M S Liberhan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Union Home Minister Palaniyappan Chidambaram and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati in the dock. It must be revealed whether the half-baked inquiry into the country's biggest dispute is the result of laxity by design or pre-planned conspiracy. The answers will also lead to the conclusion whether it is a case of destruction of evidence or ignoring evidence, or manufacturing false evidence or obstructing the process of law. If 23 vital files related to the dispute were missing, then what did the Liberhan Commission actually inquire into and how did submit its report? While submitting his report to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh why didn't Justice Liberhan officially acknowledge that his inquiry was incomplete because of the missing files? Why didn't he also mention the fact about the missing files and the mysterious death of an official of U P home department? What was the great hurry to submit the report? Why did the U P government keep mum on this issue till 2009 and why did Chidamabaram place the report in Parliament despite knowing everything? Why it isn't a case for 'destruction of evidence', 'manufacturing false evidence', and 'obstruction of justice' against the Liberhan Commission for submitting an incomplete report and failing to mention vital facts therein? Did the commission, in a hurry to submit the report, 'manufacture' suitable 'facts'? In view of the incomplete report, questions have also arisen over the 48 extensions granted to the commission over 17 years and the crores of rupees spent over it. Subhashbhan Sadh, an officer on special duty (OSD) in the home department of U P government, was pushed out of Kashi Vishwanath Express train while it was passing through the Tilak Bridge station in Delhi on the night of May 1, 2000. A badly injured Sadh was rushed to Delhi's Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital by men of the Delhi police. He died there the next day. The state government adopted a mysterious silence on this issue. At that time there were BJP governments at the Centre and the state, headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee in Delhi and Ram Prakash Gupta in Lucknow. After a silence spanning nine years and three months, the state government told the Allahabad High Court in July 2009 that 23 files containing important facts regarding the Mandir-Masjid dispute are missing. It is interesting to note that the Mayawati government said the 23 files were missing since the death of Sadh in 2000, whereas the then BJP government had in 2000 submitted an affidavit in Delhi High Court that Sadh had not brought any files to Delhi. It is not easy to sift between fact and conspiracy in these so-called official statements. It must be noted that while on one hand the state home department officials kept quiet on Sadh's death, on the other, the then principal secretary (home) V K Mittal came to Delhi and went to Lohia Hospital and inquired about the files. The Liberhan Commission was constituted within ten days of the demolition of the disputed shrine on December 6, 1992. It was asked to submit its report within three months but it took 17 years and three months with 48 extensions to do the job. It submitted its report on June 30, 2009 and had it not been for the pressure and hurry, it would have sought further extension. The commission concluded the inquiry and submitted the report even before the CBI could complete its investigation into the mysterious disappearance of 23 files. The fact of the missing files was not mentioned in the report and it was tabled in Parliament in November 2009 even though the home ministry was aware of the disappearance of the files and the suspicious death of the OSD. Call it conspiracy or co-incidence, on July 7, 2009 – six days after the commission submitted its report on June 30, 2009 – the U P chief secretary Atul Kumar Gupta informs the Allahabad High Court that 23 files related to the Ayodhya dispute are missing from the home department. Reference was made to an official letter from home secretary Javed Ahmed in which the fact of the files' disappearance was acknowledged. This letter also mentioned that OSD Sadh had taken the files with him. Why did the state government sit over this fact for 10 years, and why did the Liberhan Commission not raise this issue during 17 years of inquiry? Senior advocate Anupam Gupta of Punjab & Haryana High Court, who had been counsel to the Liberhan Commission says that it seems a fit case for destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice against both the Liberhan Commission and the U P government. The falsehood of the U P government and the neglect of the commission surely point towards a conspiracy. Despite being mortally injured, Sadh had told his relatives that he had come to deliver two files related to the Ayodhya dispute to the Liberhan Commission. Supreme Court lawyer Randhir Jain confirms that Sadh had mentioned to his family members about the files, but still the Delhi police didn't deem it fit to register his statement. Jain terms it a result of a blatant high-level political conspiracy. This is how he mentions the facts: » Six days after the commission submits its report, the U P government acknowledges the disappearance of 23 files and death of an official, whereas the official (Sadh) had died nine years ago » If the files were missing since then, why wasn't an FIR lodged at that time itself? Why was it acknowledged nine years later? » It is suspected that first the official was 'eliminated' and then the files were removed, and the disappearance linked to the man's death » On July 6, 2000 the then special secretary (home) K B Agrawal of U P government had submitted a report to Delhi police acknowledging that Sadh had not carried any files to Delhi » This government statement was changed nine years later in 2009, when the chief secretary of U P government said that Sadh had indeed carried original files to Delhi » The then deputy commissioner of police of Delhi T N Mohan had in his affidavit in Delhi High Court in 2000 mentioned about K B Agrawal's report, and also confirmed that the police did not find any file in original or a copy thereof in its search after the accident » The present-day chief secretary of U P government links the disappearance of the 23 files with Sadh's death » On one hand Sadh's son Harishbhan Sadh has been given a government job on humanitarian grounds, and on the other the charge of carrying 23 sensitive files has been leveled against the deceased » The government did not deem it necessary to investigate the allegations that Sadh could have been murdered » The Allahabad High Court directed the CBI to investigate into the disappearance of the 23 files. Late Subhashbhan Sadh's aged father Virbhan Sadh kept on imploring that his son's death be probed by the CBI. He said his son had been done to death under a conspiracy and the files related to the Ayodhya dispute had been removed later. The senior Sadh's pleas were not heard and he died in January 2010. Jain is categorical in saying that "The files were removed after Subhashbhan Sadh's death. It was a clear game. In fact the conspiracy was to dispose Sadh's body after saying that he could not identified. When a case of murder was filed a two-judge bench of Delhi Court was 'managed'. When the case went to another bench, that too was 'managed.' It then went to a third bench. When this bench started going into it, the case was transferred to a fourth bench. That bench too was 'managed' and the case was eventually closed. All evidence was destroyed. Those behind the conspiracy are powerful people who can eliminate whomever they want. The CBI was harassing Sadh's aged father, then I intervened. Everyone colluded to dismiss the murder case. The U P government wanted to hush up the case of Sadh's death. Now they are talking about 23 files, whereas earlier it pertained to only two files." Sadh's widow Kamta Sadh now only wants that the mystery of her husband's death is solved. The case of the missing files was handed over to the CBI on July 15, 2009. The high court had directed the inquiry to be completed in two months and the report to be filed by August 24, but seven months later the CBI has filed its report now. But before that the Liberhan Commission submitted its inquiry report. The issue of the disappearance of the files was being probed by the CBI and the court wanted the report to be submitted within a stipulated time, yet the Liberhan Commission did not wait. The CBI has held 51 officials of the U P government as being responsible for the disappearance of the files and a list of these officials has been submitted to the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. The state's advocate general Jyotindra Mishra told a special bench of the high court comprising Justice D V Sharma, S R Alam and Sudhir Agrawal that a show-cause notice had been issued to the officials concerned in view of the CBI report. CBI officials are not willing to talk about the missing files inquiry report. They merely said that three copies of the inquiry report have been submitted in sealed cover to the court, and the latter has reserved its ruling on it. 'Justice Liberhan never took it seriously' A senior advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Anupam Gupta has been counsel to the Liberhan Commission from 1999 to 2007, when he quit following some differences with Commission Chairman Justice M S Liberhan. After Gupta quit, Harpreet Singh Gyani was appointed in his place. Several important facts, including disappearance of 23 files related to Ayodhya issue and mysterious death of an official of U P home department do not find mention in the commission's report, raising number of questions. Excerpts from a detailed discussion with him: By-Line: Did the Liberhan Commission submit its report in haste when the CBI was probing the disappearance of 23 files related to the dispute? Why couldn't it wait for the CBI to submit its inquiry report? Anupam Gupta: Actually, the issue was not raised when I was there. As far as I can recall, a lawyer told me about death of Subhashbhan when the matter was in the argument stage before the Commission. By-Line: Bhan died under mysterious conditions in 2000. The Commission filed its report in 2009. Does it mean that the U P government kept the issue under wraps and also concealed it from the Commission? AG: Yes, it could be so. Perhaps Kalyan Singh's counsel did refer to this. Also, the fact came to light that U P government counsel could not play active role in this issue. But the Commission did not issue any order in this connection, nor was it pointed out which files were missing. Therefore, missing of files never became an issue before the commission. By-Line: The issue heated up in 2009... CBI submitted its report in February 2010. The Commission took 17 long years in probing an issue, when 23 files that were an integral part of that issue were missing, then why did the Commission submit its report in haste? AG: (Laughing)... The Commission was already delayed. No one wanted to delay it further. As far as I know, those files had letters of Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel and some other important personalities... the letter of the then Faizabad district magistrate K K Nayyar, the letter of the then chief minister Govind Ballabh Pant and several other documents. The High Court has asked for original files. In this regard, document experts of archaeological department should be consulted. Whatever the documents were given to the commission all were Photostat copies. We do not know what were the other documement and how did they disappear. There was no support system within the Commission. There is no mention of ideological facts related to the controversy. The issue of documents and files is very important and it should have been taken into account. By-Line: Was it not responsibility of U P Government to inform the Commission officially about the disappearance of 23 files and the mysterious death of an official of the home department? AG: It was responsibility of U P government. I remember that Justice Liberhan always used to say that the Commission had not been given all the files. The U P government counsel too used to change frequently. But I never felt it that Justice Liberhan ever took it seriously or said it seriously as he never pointed out anything specific about it... You are right in saying that the delay is one thing and the issue of missing files is also important in its own right. By-Line: There should have been mention of missing files in Liberhan report? AG: There is no mention of it in the Commission report. Though he pointed it out verbally, there is no mention of it in the report. By-Line: Despite the disappearance of the 23 files, the Commission submitted its report. In such a situation can't the Liberhan Commission and U P Government be charged with manufacturing false evidence? You also admit that there is no mention of missing files in the report. AG: Yes it is true that there is no mention of the missing files in the Commission's report. But there are two things -- destruction of evidence and Obstruction of Justice Act. In this connection, a case under section 201 and section 202 of IPC can be registered. It is like killing someone and destroying the body, in which the case would be under section 302 as well as 201 of the IPC. If what you are saying is true, it will come under destruction of evidence along with Obstruction of Justice Act. If one fact was replaced by another, non-existent fact, then it is a matter of manufacturing false evidence. So, I do not think that this is a case of manufacturing false evidence. This might be a case of destruction of material evidence. Killing of Mahant Lal Das and Subhashbhan is linked? If the mysterious death of a U P government official, the disappearance of the sensitive files related to the Ayodhya dispute and the submission of the half-baked report by the Liberhan Commission appears to be linked, then the killing of Mahant Lal Das, priest of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir in 1993 also appears to be a part of this very conspiracy. Mahant Lal Das was an eye-witness to the destruction of the shrine. About 20 days before the first anniversary of the Ayodhya demolition, Mahant Lal Das was murdered on the night of November 16, 1993. He was an important eye-witness for the CBI. With his independent views and known for opposing the Vishwa Hindu Parishad line on the Ram temple, Mahant Lal Das was officially appointed the priest of the Ram Mandir in the disputed site in 1981. He was known for raising his voice against the greedy ways of the VHP and had spoken out against the bungling of the huge offerings received at the temple. Believed to be aware of the conspiracy behind the demolition he was the key witness for the CBI and had been in the news for his rebellious statement given at the 'Citizen's Tribunal'. He had been appointed the priest of the Ram temple on the orders of the high court, but he was removed from this post as soon as the BJP came to power. Mahant Lal Das had filed a case against his dismissal. The government had withdrawn his bodyguards before he was killed. The Mahant had opposed L K Advani's Rath Yatra and had advised him against it. The Mahant believed that if the politics did not intervene in the matter, then it could be settled amicably by the Hindus and Muslims themselves. Both communities had hailed his positive views on the subject and his initiative had started getting nation-wide support. It can be understood easily who gains what by killing Mahant Lal Das, by pushing off Subhashbhan Sadh from a running train and by removing files from amidst tight security. But this surely is not a matter for inquiry by either the Liberhan Commission or the CBI. What did the missing files contain? What, after all, were the contents of those 23 files that had been removed from the home department in the high-security Uttar Pradesh Secretariat? Their importance can be understood from the titles on the top sheets of some of the files. And the significance of the rest of the files can easily be guessed. Documents pertaining to the Uttar Pradesh government's affidavit in 1951 » The disputed structure is a mosque, not a temple » The conspiracy to blast the Babri Masjid with bombs » The acquisition of land in Ayodhya by the Kalyan Singh government in 1991 The Allahabad High Court had in 2002 ordered that seven documents related to the Ayodhya dispute be traced and submitted before it. In 2009 the number of missing files rose to 23. The U P government alone would know how did this number increase. But the government merely told the court that the seven documents mentioned earlier could be part of the 23 files that had been termed as missing. CBI sources, however, say that most of the files pertain to the correspondence in 1949 between the Centre, U P government and the Faizabad administration. This includes the letter written by Jawaharlal Nehru about the removal of the statues in 1949. The correspondence between the then (1949) district magistrate of Faizabad K K Nayyar and the state's chief secretary had also been sought by the court. A CBI official said that it had been able to trace only eight of the 23 missing files. (This Cover Story of Prabhat Ranjan Deen was Published in By-Line National Weekly News Magazine (Hindi & English) - in February 20, 2010 Issue)
	खबरें @ बाई-लाईन | comments (0)