Judge SK Yadav
Judge SK Yadav Special CBI judge had acquitted all the accused in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case.
Litigation News

Supreme Court rejects plea for extension of security to Babri Masjid demolition Special Judge

Bar & Bench

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a plea filed by Special Judge SK Yadav - who recently ruled on the Babri Masjid demolition case - seeking the continuation of his security cover.

A three-judge Bench of Justices Rohinton Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari said that there is no situation warranting the continuation of security for Yadav.

"Having perused the letter dated September 30, we do not consider it necessary to continue security," the Bench remarked.

Judge Yadav had, on September 30, acquitted all the accused in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case including former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani and BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti.

Yadav had held that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had failed to produce any evidence of conspiracy by the accused. He held that the demolition of the mosque was a spontaneous act, sans any provocation by the leaders.

The trial was conducted for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 147 (Rioting), 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion), 153-B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) 295 (Injuring or defiling place of worship) 295-A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class), and 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) IPC read with Sections 149 (Unlawful assembly) and 120B (Criminal conspiracy) IPC.

Allahabad High Court seeks status of complaints pending with UP Bar Council against lawyers

Delhi High Court to pronounce its judgment on Textbook PIL on April 29

Kerala High Court orders status quo on Cheruvally Estate Acquisition for Sabarimala Airport

Vested interest groups undermining nation's achievements: Justice Dipankar Datta in EVM judgment

Supreme Court unconvinced by NCDRC members' explanation for flouting court order

SCROLL FOR NEXT