Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored dispute. It said:

“Notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter we are of the view that an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation.”

Stating that there is no legal impediment to making a reference to mediation for a possible settlement of the disputes arising out of the appeals, the Court said that whether Order 1 rule 8 CPC and Order XXIII rule 3-B of the CPC would apply in the event parties arrive at a settlement/compromise in the mediation proceedings is a matter left open to be decided at the appropriate stage.

Panel of Mediators:

  1. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India – Chairman
  2. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – Member
  3. Shri Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate – Member

The members are at liberty to co-opt other members of the Panel.

Where and how:

The proceedings will take place and Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide mediators all the facilities in Faizabad. Mediators can seek further legal assistance as and when required. The proceedings will be held in-camera.

Time-frame:

The mediation process is expected to commence within a week and the mediators have to send a report of the progress of the mediation to the Court within four weeks of the commencement of the process.

Confidentiality of the proceedings:

The Court said that the mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentiality so as to ensure its success which can only be safeguarded by directing that the proceedings of mediation and the views expressed therein by any of the parties including the learned Mediators shall be kept confidential and shall not be revealed to any other person. The Court further said:

“while the mediation proceedings are being carried out, there ought not to be any reporting of the said proceedings either in the print or in the electronic media. However, we refrain from passing any specific order at this stage and instead empower the learned mediators to pass necessary orders in writing, if so required, to restrain publication of the details of the mediation proceedings.”

In it’s order dated 26.02.2019, the Court has said that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

Reserving it’s order on 06.03.2019, the Court had said:

“Even if there is one percent chance, it should be explored.”

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 342, order dated 08.03.2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has said that it will ‘soon’ pass the order on whether the Ayodhya dispute will be referred to a Court appointed mediation for ‘permanent solution’.

The Court has asked the parties to suggest the name of a mediator or a panel of mediators. It said:

“There need not be one mediator but a panel of mediators. When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process in on.”

Considering the possibility of ‘healing relations’, the Court said:

“Even if there is one percent chance, it should be explored.”

In it’s order dated 26.02.2019, the Court has said that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

(With inputs from ANI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ said that it will pass order on March 6, 2019 on whether the case may be sent for court-monitored mediation to save time.

At the outset of the hearing, CJI said that the Court will start hearing only when all the contesting parties tell it clearly whether official translated copies of records done by State of Uttar Pradesh is acceptable to all as it did not want any dispute over it in the midst of hearing. The State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted translation of the oral evidence in the case which runs into about 13000 pages.

CJI Gogoi said:

“We are not going to waste our time and of this Court if disputes are going to be raised regarding translation of the documents.”

The Court, hence, directed:

“We direct the parties to satisfy themselves with regard to the accuracy, correctness, relevance, etc. of the translation filed in the Registry by the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the translated copies of the Exhibits made available by the parties and point out their respective agreements/objections stating precisely the part of the translations on which objections/disagreements are being raised. Once the said process is completed, which we expect the parties to do within eight weeks from today, further orders will follow so that hearing of the cases can begin in the right earnest.”

The Court, also suggested that during this 8 weeks’ time a Court appointed and Court monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases. It, however, made clear that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

Bobde, J said:

“We may decide a property dispute but we are thinking more about healing relationships.”

The bench, however, refrained from passing any order on the said suggestion for now and said that it will pass order on March 6, 2019 on the issue whether Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute be referred to Court appointed mediator.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 272, order dated 26.02.2019]

(With inputs from The Leaflet)
Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: After Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case famously known as the Ayodhya dispute, the Court adjourned the matter till January 29 for deciding the schedule of hearing. Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the matter after it was pointed out that he had represented former UP Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, in a related matter.

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had formed a 5-judge Constitution Bench consisting of himself and Justice SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit and Justice Dr. DY Chandrachud, after he along with Justice SK Kaul had ordered on January 4 that an “appropriate bench” constituted by it will pass an order on January 10.

Earlier on 27.09.2018, a Bench comprising of former CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, had held that the appeals concerning the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid) matter need not be referred to a larger Bench for consideration.

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: In a hearing that lasted for less than a minute, the bench comprising Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S K Kaul, J said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case famously known as the Ayodhya dispute.

Earlier on 27.09.2018, a Bench comprising of former CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, had held that the appeals concerning the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid) matter need not be referred to a larger Bench for consideration.

(Source: PTI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, held that the appeals concerning the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid) matter need not be referred to a larger Bench for consideration. Ashok Bhushan, J. delivered the majority judgment for CJ Dipak Misra and himself. While S. Abdul Nazeer, J. in his separate opinion was of the view that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench.

The present appeals were fixed for commencement of final arguments on 05-12-2017, when Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Court in Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360 needs reconsideration, hence the reference be made to a larger Bench. In Ismail Faruqui, while the Constitution Bench (per majority) upheld the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 except that of Section 4(3) of the Act which was struck down; it also made observations that a mosque s not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open. According to Dr Dhavan, the law laid down in Ismail Faruqui in relation to praying in a mosque not being an essential practice is contrary to both, i.e. the law relating to essential practice and the process by which essential practice is to be considered. Whether essential practice can be decided on a mere ipse dixit of the Court or whether the Court is obliged to examine belief, tenets and practices, is a pure question of law. He submitted that Ismail Faruqui judgment being devoid of any examination on the above issues, the matter need to go to a larger Bench.

The Court had to find out the context of observations made in the judgment which according to the appellant were questionable and to decide whether the said observations furnish any ground for reconsideration of the Constitution Bench judgment. After referring to a plethora of judgments, Ashok Bhushan, J. observed that the question as to whether particular religious practice is essential or integral part of the religion is a question, which has to be considered by considering the doctrine, tenets and beliefs of the religion. What Dr Dhavan contended was that the Constitution Bench in Ismail Faruqui, without there being any consideration of essentiality of a religion, made the questionable observations. It was observed from that the context for making the said observation was a claim of immunity of a mosque from acquisition. Whether every mosque is the essential part of the practice of religion of Islam, acquisition of which ipso facto may violate the rights under Articles 25 and 26, was the question which had cropped up for consideration before the Constitution Bench. The observation has been made to emphasise there is no immunity of the mosque from the acquisition. What the Court in Ismail Faruqui meant was that unless the place of offering of prayer has a particular significance so that any hindrance to worship may violate right under Articles 25 and 26, any hindrance to offering of prayer at any place shall not affect right under Articles 25 and 26. the observation need not be read broadly to hold that a mosque can never be an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam.

As to the question of res judicata –the present proceedings being barred in light of the decision in Ismail Faruqui, the Court held that the issues which were involved in that case were validity of the Act of 1993. The issues which have been framed in the suits giving rise to the present appeals were different issues which could not be said to be directly and substantially in issue in Ismail Faruqui. On this count alone, the plea of res judicata as raised by the respondent was liable to be rejected.

While concluding, the Court held that the questionable observations made in Ismail Faruqui, as noted above, were made in context of land acquisition. Those observations were neither relevant for deciding the suits nor relevant deciding the present appeals. Therefore, the Court was of the considered opinion that no case was made out to refer the Constitution Bench judgment Ismail Faruqui for reconsideration. Hence, no case has been made out seeking reference of these appeals to a Constitution Bench of this Court.

S. Abdul Nazeer, J., in his separate opinion stated that he was unable to accept the view of the Justice Bhushan that no case had been made out seeking reference of the present appeals to a Constitution Bench of this Court. However, he was in respectful agreement with the opinion on the question of res judicata. Therefore, while concluding, considering the Constitutional importance and significance of the issues involved, he was of the opinion that following questions need to be referred to a larger Bench:

(a) Whether in the light of Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282 and other cases, an essential practice can be decided without a detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith in question?

(b) Whether the test for determining the essential practice is both essentiality and integrality?

(c) Does Article 25, only protect belief and practices of particular significance of a faith or all practices regarded by the faith as essential?

(d) Do Articles 15, 25 and 26 (read with Article 14) allow the comparative significance of faiths to be undertaken?

As per the majority, it was held that the present appeal does not require to be referred to a larger Bench nor does the Ismail Faruqui case needs reconsideration. The matter was disposed of accordingly. [M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1677, decided on 27-09-2018]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of CJI Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer JJ. resumed with the proceedings on the ongoing Ayodhya matter dispute over the rights of the Hindu and Muslim community to build a temple or a masjid today.

Shia Waqf Board submitted to the Supreme Court that they want to settle the dispute by peace. They also stated that the custodian of the Babri mosque was a Shia and the Sunni Waqf Board or anyone else is not the representative of Muslims in India.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhawan said ‘Shia Waqf Board has no locus to speak in this case.’

‘No faith has the right to destroy a mosque. The fact that a mosque is destroyed does not conclude the argument of the right to prayer’: Rajeev Dhawan

Further, Dhawan placed his arguments on whether collateral issue decided by Court would constitute ‘Res Judicata’.

Shia Waqf Board: Matter need not be referred to Constitution Bench reiterates that it is ready to relinquish claims in the national interest.

The proceedings in the said matter to continue on 20-07-2018.

[Source: ANI]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: In the Ram Janamabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, famously known as the Ayodhya matter, Senior Advocate Raju Ramchandran, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board asked the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AK Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ to refer the matter to a Constitutional bench. He said that “the issue needs larger consideration keeping in view that it is a national issue.”

Senior Advocate Harish Salve said:

“We are beyond 1992-1993. All that remains is a title dispute over property. It should be decided just like a title suit, and not on other grounds.”

The bench has listed the matter for further hearing on 15.05.2018.

On the last hearing, the Court witnessed a high voltage drama when Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan and Additional Solicitors Generals Maninder Singh and Tushar Mehta engaged in war of words.

Source: ANI

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: When the 3-judge Bench of Dipak Misra, CJI and Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer, JJ assembled to hear the Ram Janamabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, famously known as the Ayodhya matter, it saw a heated exchange between Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan and Additional Solicitors Generals Maninder Singh and Tushar Mehta.

Below are the excerpts from the heated exchange that took centre stage instead of the arguments in the Ayodhya matter:

  • Maninder Singh asks Rajeev Dhavan to move a bit.
  • Dhavan: Sit down Mr. Maninder Singh, sit down.
  • Singh: Behave yourself Mr. Dhavan.
  • Dhavan: Don’t talk nonsense.
  • Singh: You are talking nonsense.
  • Tushar Mehta (Supporting ASG Maninder Singh): There are people who are arrogant. With due respect to the learned senior counsel, he seems to have undergone a course in it.
  • Dhavan (To the Bench): Why are they sitting next to me and murmuring away and murmuring away?
  • Mehta: Why are you standing near us? There is enough space there.

Rajeev Dhavan then made some comments against former Attorney General and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for a Hindu group. He said:

“I am not indulging in theatrics and drama like Mr Parasaran. He suddenly gets up and says things.”

Senior Counsel C S Vaidyanathan and ASG Mehta took offence to the language used by Dhavan. The bench then reminded Dhavan that Parasaran was the former Attorney General of India.

Rajeev Dhavan, who has been pressing for referring the Ayodhya Matter to a Constitution Bench, asked the Bench that why did the Court chose to refer pleas to declare polygamy unconstitutional to a Constitution Bench but was skeptical in referring the Ramjanmabhoomi title appeals to a five-judge Bench, that too, despite repeated requests from the Muslim parties. He said:

“The Ramjanmabhoomi case is the most important issue that affects India’s secularism, more than polygamy.”

To this, Bhushan, J said that the order passed in the polygamy case could not be made a ground to refer the Ramjanmabhoomi appeals to a Constitution Bench. The Bench then told Dhavan that it will hear the arguments from both sides before taking a call on whether the case should be sent to a five-judge Bench. CJI said that the Bench was aware of the high significance and the enormous impact of the question of Muslim rights of worship raised in the Ramjanmabhoomi case and that is why it has decided to hear the matter keenly.

The Court will now hear the matter on 27.04.2018. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan will continue his arguments on the said date.

Source: The Hindu

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ dismissed all the intervention applications filed in the Ram Janamabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, famously known as the Ayodhya matter, and directed the Registry not to entertain any interlocutory applications for intervention/ impleadment/ for filing any book or additional documents/ for seeking permission to give assistance in these appeals from any third party.

Applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen and Teesta Setalvad were part of the 32 intervention applications that were rejected by the Court. The Court also rejected the application filed by Subramanian Swamy, however, it ordered the revival of Swamy’s disposed plea that had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram Temple in Ayodhya. He had told the Court:

“my fundamental rights are higher than my property rights.”

Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan appeared before the Court in today’s hearing after his client asked him to reconsider his decision to give up court practice. Rajeev Dhavan had given up court practice after the humiliating end to the Delhi case,  in which, a heated exchange had taken place between him and CJI.

Rajeev Dhavan had submitted before the Court that the matter should be referred to a larger bench in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360. The Court hence said:

“we should hear Dr. Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing in one of the appeals on behalf of the appellants, whether the judgment in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui (supra) requires reconsideration.”

The Bench, however, made it clear that clear that it’s addressing the said issue shall singularly relate to whether the Bench should think of that the dictum in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui (supra) requires reconsideration and in that event, it may pass appropriate orders for placing the matter before a five-Judge Bench for consideration of the said judgment.

On 05.12.2017, the Court had refused to defer the matter till 2019 and had asked all the counsels to work in harmony in order to achieve speedy disposal of the matter. On the same day, the Courtroom witnessed another exchange between Rajeev Dhavan and CJI when Rajeev Dhavan told the Court that he would require four months to read prepare and argue the matter. On this, the Court said:

“Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel almost thought of writing a Shavian preface, which can more than be main drama or a play, by stating that he would require four months to read, prepare and argue. We have noted this, as the said submission was advanced with medieval passion and sans reason.”

The Court will now hear the matter on March 23. [M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 222, order dated 14.03.2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Fixing the next hearing on 08.02.2018, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ asked all the Advocates-on Record appearing for all the parties to work in harmony and see to it that the documents are filed within a time-frame, if not already filed. The Court said that, on the next date, the advocates should come prepared to argue the matter and shall not seek any adjournment and if the Registry finds that the matter is incomplete for some reason or the other, it shall place the matter before the learned Chief Justice of India on the administrative side for fixing a date for completion of the record.

The said order came after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board, told the Court that the pleadings were not complete as all the exhibits were not filled before the court. However, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, rebutted Kapil Sibal’s claim and told the Court that all the related documents and requisite translation copies were on record.

The Court also expressed shock over certain arguments advanced by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dushyant Dave. During the course of hearing, the counsels had submitted before the Court that the matter should be heard at present as it was not an ordinary appeal arising out of ordinary suit and that the matter should be listed some time in 2019.

Regarding the submission made by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan that he would require four months to read prepare and argue, the Court said:

“Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel almost thought of writing a Shavian preface, which can more than be main drama or a play, by stating that he would require four months to read, prepare and argue. We have noted this, as the said submission was advanced with medieval passion and sans reason.”

The Court refused to accept the abovementioned submissions.

Rajeev Dhavan had also sought for referring the matter to a larger bench in view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in M. Ismail Faruqui (Dr) v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360. However, Senior Advocates K. Parasran and Harish Salve submitted before the Court that:

“the issue whether the matter should be referred to a larger Bench or not, cannot be adjudged at this juncture, because the judgment by the Constitution Bench is binding on this Court and further if an occasion arises and if the context so requires, the matter may be considered at that stage, but that should not stall the process of hearing of this matter.”

Refusing to stall the hearing in the matter, the Court listed the matter on 08.02.2018. [M.Siddiq (D) v. Mahant Suresh Das,  2017 SCC OnLine SC 1416, order dated 05.12.2017]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ allowed 3-months time for the translation of the historic documents after the Sunni Waqf Board said that the translation was incomplete as all the original historic documents were in Sanskrit, Parsi, Urdu, Arabic and other languages. Granting 3 months’ time for the translation of the documents crucial to the settlement of the Ram janmbhoomi and Babri Masjid dispute, the Court listed the matter to be taken up for hearing on 05.12.2017.

Earlier, on 08.08.2017, the Shia Waqf Board had filed an affidavit before the supreme Court in which it had said that it was fine if the Masjid was located in a Muslim dominated area at a reasonable distance from Lord Ram’s birth place i.e. Ram Janmabhoomi and that since the Babri Masjid was a Shia Waqf, the Shia Waqf Baord alone is entitled to negotiate and arrive at a peaceful settlement with the stakeholders.

Source: ANI

 

Hot Off The PressNews

On 08.08.2017, the Shia Waqf Board filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya matter and said that it was fine if the Masjid was located in a Muslim dominated area at a reasonable distance from Lord Ram’s birth place i.e. Ram Janmabhoomi. In the affidavit, the Board has mentioned that since the Babri Masjid was a Shia Waqf, the Shia Waqf Baord alone is entitled to negotiate and arrive at a peaceful settlement with the stakeholders.

The Babri Masjid was built in the 16th century and was demolished in the year 1992 for allegedly being built over the Ram Janmabhoomi. The demolition resulted into nation-wide communal riots between Hindu and Muslim community that killed around 900 people. Since then, there has been an ongoing dispute over the rights of the Hindu and Muslim community to build a temple or a masjid, respectively.

Source: ANI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Giving out a major verdict, the Bench of P.C. Ghose and R.F. Nariman, JJ ruled that L.K. Advani, Vinay Katiar, Uma Bharati, Sadhvi Ritambara, Murli Manohar Joshi and Vishnu Hari Dalmia are to be tried for conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition which resulted into nation-wide riots between Hindu and Muslim community. The Court, however, said that Kalyan Singh, being the Governor of Rajasthan, is entitled to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution as long as he remains Governor of Rajasthan. The Court of Sessions will frame charges and move against him as soon as he ceases to be Governor.

Stating that the cases against the leaders and the Kar Sewaks to be tried together by the Sessions Court at Lucknow, the Court asked the Sessions Court to frame additional charges under Section 120-B and the other provisions of the Penal Code mentioned in the joint charge-sheet filed by the CBI against Champat Rai Bansal, Satish Pradhan, Dharam Das, Mahant Nritya Gopal Das, Mahamadleshwar Jagdish Muni, Ram Bilas Vadanti, Vaikunth Lal Sharma, and Dr. Satish Chandra Nagar.

Directing the Sessions Court to have daily hearings, the Court directed that the controversy should be given rest to within 2 years. It was further directed that there shall be no de novo trial, however, no prejudice will be caused to the accused as they have the right to recall witnesses already examined either in Rae Bareilly or in Lucknow for the purpose of cross-examination. Also, there shall be no transfer of the Judge conducting the trial until the entire trial concludes. The case shall not be adjourned on any ground except when the Sessions Court finds it impossible to carry on the trial for that particular date. In such an event, on grant of adjournment to the next day or a closely proximate date, reasons for the same shall be recorded in writing.

The demolition of the mosque was an outcome of the speech made by the BJP leaders at Ayodhya alleging that the Mosque was built upon the Ram Janmbhoomi i.e. the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Allahabad High Court, by order dated 22.05.2010, had dropped the charges of conspiracy against the aforementioned Senior leaders stating criminal conspiracy had never been made out against the said persons. The High Court also said that there were two classes of accused, namely, leaders who were on the dais exhorting the Kar Sewaks at 200 meters from the Masjid, and the Kar Sewaks themselves. The nature of the accusations against both was different and their involvement was for different criminal offences.

Considering the seriousness of the matter, the Court said that crimes which shake the secular fabric of the Constitution of India have allegedly been committed almost 25 years ago and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of the conduct of the CBI in not pursuing the prosecution of the aforesaid alleged offenders in a joint trial, and because of technical defects which were easily curable, but which were not cured by the State Government. The Court noticed that the filing of the supplementary charge sheet against 8 accused persons which is going on separately at Rae Bareilly and the dropping altogether of charges against the 13 accused persons has completely derailed the joint trial envisaged and has resulted in a fractured prosecution going on in two places simultaneously based on a joint charge-sheet filed by the CBI itself. [State v. Kalyan Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 444, decided on 19.04.2017]