Compliance with court orders and ensuring security of the disputed structure were the two major areas of concern for the Central Government in its interaction with Government of Uttar Pradesh on the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid issue. The concern of the Central Government was shred with the State. Government through letters, meetings and personal discussions. The State Government continued to reassure the Central Government of its commitment on both these counts.

Compliance with Court Orders

6.1 - The need to ensure compliance of court orders was taken up by the Union Home Minister at his level with the Chief Minister of UP in meetings, discussions and through letters (Appendix- VII). Letters were written by the Home Minister in this regard on 23 March 1992, 17 May 1992, 29 May 1992, 7 July 1992, 9 July 1992 and 29 October 1992. At the official level also the matter had been taken up on numerous occasions through discussions and letters. During the visit of an Official Team to Ayodhya on 12-14 July, 1992 and of another high-level team to Lucknow and Ayodhya on 31 August, 1992, the whole matter was taken up with the State authorities.

6.2 - Observations relating to the court orders were also made in the report prepared by a Delegation of Members of the Standing Committee of the NIC and Parliament which visited Ayodhya on 7 April, 1992 and the above mentioned Official Team which visited Ayodhya on 12-14 July, 1992. The report of the Official Team was brought to the notice of the State Government for appropriate action on the recommendations. However, the State Government did not indicate the action, if any, taken in this regard. After it was announced that the kar seva would be resumed and it became quite apparent that such kar seva would be tantamount to violation of court orders, the Union Home Ministry again took up the matter with the State Government. At the level of the Home Minister, letters were written on 21st November, 1992 and 3rd December, 1992. The Home Minister drew the specific attention of the Government of UP to the responsibility of the State Government in preventing any activity which would be violative of court orders.

Security of the Disputed Structure and likely fall-out on the Communal Situation

6.3 - The Central Government had always been concerned with the fall-out of the RJB-BM dispute on the law and order situation in the country, particularly in the event of any damage or harm being caused to the structure. Also any construction activity or plan that visualised that the structure would in future be demolished or relocated or absorbed: into a temple would adversely affect communal harmony. The Government of India expressed anxiety over the fact that a number of security arrangements which had earlier been in existence were progressively dismantled by the State authorities; for example, the outer cordon iron pipe barricading, barbed wire fencing, concertina wire rolls and a number of road barriers were removed. Also frisking arrangements before entering the RJB-BM complex were discontinued and free entry had been allowed into the complex. This made it possible for large crowds to collect around the disputed structure. During the time the karseva for the construction of the concrete platform was undertaken in July 1992, the kar sevaks and others had various kinds of tools and implements with them. The atmosphere was one of religious frenzy and various kinds of inflammatory speeches were made.

6.4 - Maintenance of public order is the responsibilities of the State Government However, in view at the importance of the mater, the Home Ministry took up the question of the security of the structure on the continuing basis with the State Government Innumerable letters were written to the State Government in this regard. A gist of the correspondence is at Appendix-VII The Home Minister Himself wrote letters on  15 October 1991, 13 November 1991,26 December 1991, 10 January 1992, 23 March 1992, 17 May 1992, 20 May 1992, 7 July 1992. 4 July 1997, 17 July 1992, 11 September 1992, 29 October 1992, 11 November 1992, 21 November 1992, 1 December 1992, 3 December 1992 and 5 December 1992. The Home Minister also conveyed this to the Chief Minister or personal meetings and in discussions, during the period October—November 1992 he also suggested to the Chief Minister that a comprehensive review of the security plan for the structure might be carried out in which the representatives of Central expert organisations should also be associated. However, this suggestion was not accepted by the State Government despite repeated requests from the Home Ministry. Particular shortcomings in the security measures taken by the State Government were pointed out to the State Government. The Home Ministry also informed the Chief Minister that according to the Centre's assessment, the forces deployed by the State Government for security purposes at Ayodhya in connection With the kar seva proposed to commence from 6 December 1992 would not be sufficient to meet the security requirement, especially if any untoward development took place or if in the environment of religious frenzy. Violence broke out. The Central Government also brought the inadequacy of security arrangements to the notice of the Supreme Court on 30 November 1992, and the Supreme Court asked the State Government to give its constructive consideration to the suggestions made by the Government of India. However, no effective action was taken by the State Government.

Stationing of Central Para Military Forces

6.5 - The Central Government had taken the precaution of stationing Central Para Military Forces at various places in Uttar Pradesh on 24 November 1992 itself in the proximity of Ayodhya so that these could be made available at short notice if and when required by the State Government for deployment in connection with the security of the disputed structure and maintenance of law and order. As many 2 195 companies of the Central Para Military Forces were stationed and they were fully prepared to deal with any untoward development having been equipped with facilities such as tear gas, rubber bullets, plastic pellets and over 900 vehicles. The force included Women CRPF companies, NSG Commandos, bomb disposal teams and sniffer dog squads. The intention was that this force should be utilised by the State Government with minimum loss of time. The Home Minister repeatedly urged the Chief Minister to consider deploying the force in connection with the security arrangements at Ayodhya. However, instead of utilising theforce, the Chief Minister criticised the Central Government's action in stationing the force in his State and demanded its withdrawal. He even went to the extent of challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Government’s action and made false allegations against Central para-military personnel. The State Government however, accepted the service of bomb detection squads and sniffer dog squads after the Central Government brought to the State Government's notice the possibility of threat by explosives to the disputed structure and urged the deployment of these squads. Despite the Chief Minister's strange and recalcitrant attitude, the Central para military forces stationed neat Ayodhya were kept on total alert so as to be made available to the State authorities as soon as required.

Development Plans in the Acquired Land

6.6 - In order to know, inter alia, whether any plans of the State Government or other agencies in or ground the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid complex affected the disputed structure, the Government of India had on a number of occasions, asked the State Government to indicate its development and constructure plans in and around this complex including the acquired land. The Stat Government had informed that the purpose of land acquisision was "the development of tourism and providing amenities to the pilgrim at Ayodhya', It also informed that the acquired land would be used to make "the immediate and urgent arrangement to accommodate the pilgrims and to make arrangement for their shelter and provide them other amenities. This would include amongst other things beautification of the area, shelter places for pilgrims and arrangement's for providing medical and drinking water facilities to the pilgrims. In addition, other works would be undertaken for attracting tourists and pilgrims"  This matter was also taken up with the State authorities by the above mentioned Central Official Team which visited Ayodhya on 12-14 July 1992. No clear reply was received from the Stale Government. However, the State Government in a letter dated 26 November, 1992 to the Home Ministry had informed that the development and construction plans in respect of the acquired land (2.77 acres) and other areas had not been finalised. It was not clear how all the demolitions, digging and levelling had been undertaker without any plans having been drawn up. While the situation was not clarified to the Government of India by the State Government, in affidavits filed on behalf of the State Government in the High Court, the scope of the purpose of acquisition was sought to be widened by including in it matters relating to the renovation and reconstruction of the temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram.

Attitude of the State Government

6.7 - The Government of UP has always taken a clear-cut stand that it was committed to the security of the structure. Mention has already been made of the assurance given in the National Integration Council meeting of 2nd November, 1991 by the CM of UP. It has also been mentioned that the CM’s assurance was incorporated in an order dated 15th November; 1991 of the Supreme Court. Assurance on the subject of the security of the structure was reiterated in clear terms in the affidavit of the State Government filed on 27th November, 1992 before the Supreme Court. Relevant excerpts are as follows:-

“The State Government reiterates that it is fully committed to safeguard and protect the disputed Ram Janma Bhoomi Structure in Ayodhya. The State Government has been frequently reviewing security arrangements of the disputed structure and has been taking all necessary steps to ensure its safety. Entry to the disputed structure is carefully controlled and every person is checked before entry. Metal detectors and close circuit T.V. are in operation. Road barriers are also used for controlling the crowd whenever necessary. Recently the State Government has decided to deploy additional 15 companies of P.A.C and additional police force for the security of the structure and for maintaining law and order.

Thus the State Government is fully competent to ensure the safety of the structure without any additional central force.”

6.8 - The commitment to the security of the structure was also stressed in the letters of the CM, UP to the Home Minister. In his letter dated 9th July, 1992 he gave an account of the security arrangements. Again on 12th July, 1992 he wrote to the Home Minister in the context of Home Minister’s visit to Ayodhya and reacted favourably to the suggestions made for the security of the structure, Even while construction work was going on during the month of July, 1992, the CM in his letter dated 21st of July, 1992 stated that there was no threat to the structure despite the presence of the large number of people engaged in the construction work. The commitment of the State Government to the security of the structure was again stressed in the CM's letter of 25th November to the Home Minister. Despite this oft-reiterated commitment however, the Chief Minister reacted very strongly to the stationing of Central forces near Ayodhya. The State Government was informed of the Stationing of these forces on 24th November. The very next day the Chief Minister wrote to the Home Minister protesting against this precautionary move of the Central Government He followed this up with letters addressed to the Prime Minister on 26th and 27th November and December, at no stage, did the Government of UP indicate that it would not use force for the protection of the structure.

6.9 - The State Government has also been reiterating its commitment to enforce the court orders, This commitment has, however, boon qualified in the letters to the Central Government as well as in affidavits filed before the Supreme Court by stating that the State Government did not favour the use of force and preferred an approach based on persuasion. This stand of the State Government was also very much in evidence when during July, 1992 it did not use force against the persons engaged in construction work in violation of court orders.