Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shri Kalyan Singh - Supreme Court
State (through) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shri Kalyan Singh - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -
On 19th April, 2017, in the case of State (through) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Shri Kalyan Singh (former CM of UP) & Ors.[Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2017], in an appeal arising out of a case in connection with the demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December, 1992, where though based on a joint charge sheet filed by the CBI, a fractured prosecution was going on in two places simultaneously- Rae Bareilly and Lucknow, the Supreme Court observed that the accused persons had “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.”
Invoking its Constitutional power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed that the pending proceedings “in the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate at Rae Bareilly will stand transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ayodhya Matters) at Lucknow” and that the Court of Sessions will frame an additional charge under Section 120-B IPC “against Mr. L.K. Advani, Mr. Vinay Katiar, Ms. Uma Bharati, Ms. Sadhvi Ritambara, Mr. Murli Manohar Joshi and Mr. Vishnu Hari Dalmia.” It was directed that though Mr. Kalyan Singh, being the Governor of Rajasthan, was entitled to immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution as long as he remained Governor of Rajasthan”, however, the “Court of Sessions will frame charges and move against him as soon as he ceases to be Governor.”
The Supreme Court further directed that “the Court of Sessions will, after transfer of the proceedings from Rae Bareilly to Lucknow and framing of additional charges, within four weeks, take up all the matters on a day-to-day basis from the stage at which the trial proceedings, both at Rae Bareilly and at Lucknow, are continuing, until conclusion of the trial” and that “there shall be no de novo trial.” The Sessions Court was asked to complete the trial and deliver the judgment within a period of 2 years”.