- (1.) These petitions raise certain important issues as to the amenability of the State and of its Ministers to be proceeded against in contempt for failure of obedience to the judicial pronouncements. These proceedings have the echo of the disastrous event that ended in the demolition on the 6th December, 1992 of the disputed structure of 'Ram Janam Bhoomi-Babri Masjid' in Ayodhya. Thousands of innocent lives of citizens were lost, extensive damage to property caused and more than all a damage to the image of this great land as one fostering great traditions of tolerance, faith, brotherhood amongst the various communities inhabiting the land was impaired in the international scene. Though the proceedings for suo motu contempt against the then Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh and its officers in relation to the happening of the 6th December, 1992 were initiated those are pending and shall be dealt with independently. The subject matter of the present contempt proceedings, however, arises out of certain antecedent events that occurred during the month of July 1992 in relation to an extent of 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya which was acquired by the State Government pursuant to a notification dated 7th October, 1991, under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The acquisition was ostensibly for the purpose of developing the acquired land as an amenity for pilgrims at Ayodhya. The acquisition proceedings were challenged both before the High Court and this Court. In those proceedings, three interlocutory orders came to be made -two by the High Court and one by this Court. In order to put the complaint of wilful disobedience of these orders by the State of Uttar Pradesh and its Chief Minister, Sri Kalyan Singh, it is necessary to advert to two of these orders. On 15th November, 1991 in W.P. No. 1000 of 1991 this Court made the following order: "The petitioners have approached this Court by way of these petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution as public interest litigation challenging the acquisition covered by two Notifications dated October 7, and October 10, 1991 made under S.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under which certain property in Faizabad close to Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid Complex has been notified for acquisition for the purpose of development of pilgrimage and providing amenities to them at Ayodhya." This Court further said :- "In the meantime, as we have been told at the Bar, there was a meeting at the national level of the Integration Council and the Chief Minister of the State as it appears from the affidavit of the Home Secretary of the respondent-State dated 13th of November, 1991 made certain statements to the council. These have been extracted in paragraph 3 of the affidavit and read thus: "The Chief Minister has made several statements at the National Integration Council meeting on 2nd November, 1991. On the basis of the statements, the resolution of National Integration Council was passed on 2nd November, 1991. The Resolution itself states: "The Council noted the following assurances given by the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh: (i) All efforts will be made to find an amicable resolution of the issue; (ii) Pending a final solution, the Government of Uttar Pradesh will hold itself fully responsible for the protection of the Ram Janmabhumi Babri Masjid structures; (iii) Orders of the Court in regard to the land acquisition proceedings will be fully implemented; and (iv) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the cases pending before it will not be violated. We shall take it , and Mr. Jaitley has no objection to our doing so, that the State of Uttar Pradesh remains bound by what has been stated in this paragraph and this shall be obligation of the State of Uttar Pradesh to stand by our order of today which is made after taking into account the stand of the State of Uttar Pradesh as disclosed by the Chief Minister and reiterated in the affidavit of the Home Secretary. It shall, therefore, be taken as a representation to the Court on which we have made this Order. On 15th July, 1992 the High Court of Allahabad in C.M.A. No. 83(O)/92 made an order to the following effect: "Learned Advocate General has prayed for and is allowed 3 days time to file counter affidavit. 3 days time is allowed for filing rejoinder to the petitioner the list immediately thereafter(.) In the meantime the opposite parties are restrained from raising any construction on the land(.) If there is any necessity for doing something on the land for its use, prior permission from the Court would be obtained (.)"
(2.) The grievance in these contempt proceedings is that these orders have been deliberately and wilfully flouted and disobeyed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. Though the petitions for contempt which were lodged in the months of February and March 1992 respectively, merely alleged here were demolition's of certain structures in violation of the interdiction in that behalf contained in the order of this Court dated 15th November, 1991. However, later on as events developed, certain subsequent events were brought to the notice of the Court by affidavits which came to be filed pointing out that large scale construction work of a permanent nature was carried out on the land in utter disregard of the orders of this Court. By order dated 5th August, 1992 this Court while recording the finding that the alleged demolition's did not strictly fall within the interdiction of the order of this Court dated 15th November, 1991, however, found that there were certain constructional activity undertaken on the land which prima facie violated the orders of this Court.
(3.) It is to be mentioned in this context that Sri Kalyan Singh, the then Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, who was initially eo nominee a party in both the proceedings was, however, deleted from the array of parties in Contempt Petition No. 97 of 1992. Sri Kalyan Singh, however, continued to be party in Contempt Petition No. 102 of 1992.;