The Supreme Court of India recently concluded all proceedings pertaining to the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid and the 2002 Gujarat riots, a move that has sparked controversy and raised questions about the Indian judicial system. The nation and its people have been affected for a long time by these two incidents, which were both characterized by religious violence and tension. The court’s decision to close these cases has generated discussions about justice, responsibility, and the judiciary in India.
The riots in Gujarat in 2002 were a tragic and troubling period in Indian history. Following a train fire in Godhra, Gujarat, which claimed the lives of 59 Hindu pilgrims leaving Ayodhya, violence broke out. Muslims were given the blame for the train fire, which led to a wave of horrific atrocities in which more than a thousand Muslims were killed by being slashed and burned. The riots horrified both the country and the rest of the globe, and this catastrophe left scars that have never entirely healed.
The Supreme Court’s three-judge panel, presided over by Chief Justice UU Lalit, heard a petition pertaining to these riots and ruled that as eight out of nine cases’ trials had already finished, the proceedings had become “infructuous” as a result of the passage of time. The court’s decision to stop considering these petitions signals the end of the judicial process surrounding the riots in Gujarat in 2002.
Another significant turning point in India’s history was the 1992 destruction of the Babri Masjid, which exacerbated racial animosity and division. On December 6, 1992, a sizable number of activists from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)-affiliated Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), a Hindu nationalist party, destroyed the 400-year-old mosque. They asserted that the mosque was constructed on the site of the deity Ram’s birth.
Another Supreme Court bench in this case issued an order to halt all proceedings, claiming that “nothing survives in the matter now.” In an earlier ruling on the Ayodhya controversy, a larger Supreme Court bench determined that the mosque was not erected on the site of any destroyed temple.
Various facets of Indian society have responded angrily to these choices. Some consider them as the conclusion of protracted legal disputes, while others see them as a deterioration of justice and accountability. In particular, the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which involved both Hindu nationalist groups and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), had political and societal repercussions.
The All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat (AIMMM), an umbrella organization of several Muslim organizations, expressed their displeasure with the verdicts on behalf of the many people who had hoped for justice and closure. According to the president of AIMMM, Navaid Hamid, the judicial system and the courts have lost all faith in them since it appears that court rulings favor the culprits over the victim.
It’s significant to note that these rulings have raised questions about the impartiality of the Indian judiciary and the impact of politics on court cases. Critics contend that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has put pressure on the media and the judiciary in addition to adopting policies that are seen as discriminatory against religious minorities.
The outcome of the cases involving the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition and the 2002 Gujarat riots has raised important questions about justice, responsibility, and the role of the judiciary in India’s democratic system. These judgments have raised worries about the nation’s pursuit of justice and defense of minority rights and left many things unanswered.
