Chairing one of the most controversial enquiries, that on the Babri Masjid demolition, has proved to be perhaps the biggest challenge Liberhan faced in his legal career.
Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, 78, chose to enter a domain which most judges fear to tread, that is, to head a commission of enquiry on a searing political subject. The history of such commissions has shown that this device is used by the government of the day to pull chestnuts out of political fire. Who else is better to do the delicate task than a judge of the higher judiciary?
Liberhan dared to take up the challenge. This challenge was greater than any he had faced during his career starting from the Allahabad high court, then on to the Madras and Andhra Pradesh high court chief justiceship. The criticism he faced during the probe and after tabling the 1,000 page report in Parliament this week has vindicated the wisdom of the judges who keep away from such assignments.
A mere ten days after the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, the then prime minister P V Narasimha Rao set up the commission to enquire into the incident and unravel the facts that led to the mosque’s. The order setting up the commission stipulated that it completes the inquiry “as soon as possible but not later than three months” and submit its report immediately thereafter. The nation waited for 17 long years, while governments came and went, and each of them granted Liberhan further extensions, ultimately totalling 48. He was one of the fortunate judges who continued to enjoy the government perks and prestige longer than their actual judicial term.
His years as the one-man commission was also remarkable for summoning the most distinguished array of political heavy-weights ever to face a probe of this order: Among hundreds of witnesses were Narasimha Rao himself and ex-Prime Ministers V P Singh and ChandraShekhar, one-time Chief Ministers like Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti and Mulayam Singh and Jyoti Basu, Union Ministers and party presidents such as L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and innumerable officials such as Union Home Secretary Madhav Godbole.
Some of them were extremely reluctant witnesses, like Kalyan Singh who was sent summons four times before he came and used the hearing as a public platform to air his beliefs. Some, like Gandhian Nirmala Deshpande did not appear at all and he only expressed “displeasure” at her absence.
Apart from the unhelpful and defiant witnesses, he had problems with his own counsel and had to change him midway.
Then again, he had to sort out the different sequence of events and theories like bombs being planted below the 16th century mosque to raze it instantly.
These factors might be sufficient justification for the delay in writing his report, which itself took four months.
In the end, he and his judicial brethren might well ponder whether the effort was worth the while. Supreme Court judges had seen the danger of judges being made cat’s paw long ago. They had taken an informal decision in the 1980s not to lend their services to the government in such fishing expeditions. For one thing, the report has no binding value. Secondly, the government most often lacks the courage to take action on the findings of the report (like the Srikrishna report on Bombay riots). Thirdly, judges get caught in the political whirlpool (like the Nanavati commission on Gujarat riots). Fourthly, the name of the judiciary tends to be misused by politicians to meet their objective. Fifthly, the judges cannot protect themselves from vitriolic attacks from politicians and the media, though they are technically shielded by the contempt of court law.
If there is one instance where all these evils conjoined to persecute one person, it is Liberhan. This will explain his anger and frustration at the media and the message. Once this is understood, you would not smirk at his idea of introducing “licence raj” in journalism.
