'I broke the news to the Supreme Court justice'

It was a different world in December 1992. 24X7 news channels did not exist and ‘breaking news’ was an unknown term. Sources for immediate news then were limited to Doordarshan and AIR. But change was in the offing: in certain areas, private cable operators had started setting up satellite dishes and beaming foreign channels. I was one of the lucky few with access to a cable operator who transmitted BBC into my home.

I was then the legal correspondent for a national daily, based in Delhi, and covering the Ayodhya dispute in the Supreme Court. In late 1992, the then Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh had given an undertaking before Justice MN Venkatachaliah and Justice GN Ray that the Babri mosque-Ram Janmabhoomi structure at Ayodhya would be protected.

Though the justices had their reservations, they had no option but to accept his statement.

Sunday, December 6, 1992 was a typical cold, foggy winter’s day in Delhi. While surfing the few channels then available on TV, I stumbled upon a BBC bulletin announcing the demolition of the Babri mosque. 

My first reaction was to wonder how the Supreme Court would react to this defiance. Picking up the phone, I called justice Venkatachaliah’s residence. His private secretary refused to connect me with the judge. He wasn’t sure about disturbing the justice with the message that a journalist wanted to speak to him about “a matter pending before him”.

But luck was on my side. justice Venkatachaliah, perhaps overhearing the conversation, brushed aside his secretary and came to the phone.
“Venkatachaliah,” I heard him.
I introduced myself and then blurted out: “Sir, the Babri mosque has been demolished.”
“That’s not possible. Who told you?” he asked in a stern voice.
“I heard it on TV.”
“What TV?”
“BBC!”
“How can you watch it on BBC?” he cross-examined.
“Sir, it’s available in my area, Mayur Vihar.” I was almost apologetic.
“But we don’t have access to this, what you call cable, on our TV,” he lamented.

At that moment, BBC began flashing news of the Babri mosque demolition again. I requested the justice to hear the news and put the telephone mouthpiece to the TV speaker.

“Oh!” That’s all I could overhear him say.
Returning to the phone, I asked, “Sir, will you take up the matter now, sometime today. It’s Sunday.”
“Let us see. No application has been filed so far. I’ll tell my secretary to inform you,” he replied and hung up.

Within an hour, Mohammad Aslam, who had been litigating for the protection of the mosque, filed an application seeking contempt of court action against all those who had razed the mosque. The first hearing started in the afternoon, but was adjourned till late evening.

By 5pm, the early edition of the next day’s newspaper for the far-off states, called G4, had already been printed. The front page, dated December 7, 1992, carried a huge headline saying the Babri mosque had been demolished.

I took along a copy of the G4 edition and also some of the latest news agency reports, which in those days came clattering over the teleprinter. Thus, armed with the latest news and the next day’s headline, neatly placed in a large envelope, I reached Justice Venkatachaliah’s residence where the evening hearing was to take place. I handed over the envelope to the secretary, who immediately passed it to the justices.

The justices called me into a private room and asked me about reporters’ sources, what the G4 edition was, and what a news agency copy with the slug ‘Kill Ayodhya’ meant (the slug means not to publish the report). I patiently explained everything to the judges. 

After some time, the hearing started. Noted constitutional lawyer KK Venugopal was UP’s counsel, but he obviously had not been briefed by his client on the latest developments. The justices, on the other hand, were reading the next day’s newspaper and were better informed about what had transpired through the day. They had some tough questions for the UP counsel, who had little to offer by way of reply.

The angry justices expressed their displeasure that the structure had been demolished and that the UP government had failed in its constitutional duty to protect the shrine and uphold the majesty of the law.

Venugopal was clearly discomfited. “My head hangs in shame,” he submitted. “I henceforth withdraw from the case.”

Aslam had filed a plea for contempt of court. The judges granted his prayer and also took suo motu action. But till date, the fates of both Aslam’s contempt petition and the suo motu action remain unknown.