The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed down all proceedings initiated in the aftermath of the 2002 Godhra communal riots in Gujarat. The top court also drew curtains on a batch of contempt petitions against the Uttar Pradesh government and its officials stemming from the demolition of the Babri controversial structure in Ayodhya in 1992.
In cases concerning the communal riots that erupted in Gujarat in the wake of the Godhra Train burning incident, when an Islamist mob torched a Sabarmati Express bogey carrying Karsevaks, killing 59 people, including children and women, the apex court said the cases have become infructuous with time and trials competing in eight out of nine cases prosecuted by the special investigation team under the court’s orders.
On 27th February 2002, a train coming from Ayodhya was set on fire by a Muslim mob in Godhra, Gujarat. 59 karsevaks, who were returning from a pilgrimage at Ram Janmabhoomi, were burnt alive. Subsequently, widespread communal riots took place in Gujarat leaving hundreds dead.
For the cases that were filed over the Babri demolition in Ayodhya in 1992, the Supreme Court observed that with more than three decades since the incident and given the court’s momentous 2019 verdict on the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri structure land dispute case in Ayodhya, the contempt cases don’t survive.
In 2019, In a historic judgement ending a dispute spanning centuries, the Supreme Court of India handed over the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid land to the Hindu parties, making way for Hindu devotees to have a grand Ram Mandir at the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Apex court also ordered the union government to provide 5 acres of land at an alternate site at a prominent location in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board to rebuild the Babri Masjid which was demolished in 1992.
The 5-judge bench of the supreme court delivered a unanimous judgement in the Ram Janmabhoomi case. The top 5 senior judges decided after weighing the arguments presented by all sides for 40 days. CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that the bench is the final arbitrator in the matter, and he said that the court is not obligated to give a religious rationale while deciding the case.
