"Our fundamental foundation is secularism. We are not going to do anything that will affect secularism." So observed the judges of the Indian Supreme Court, Justices B.N. Kirpal, G.B. Pattanaik and V.N. Khara, on March 13 whilst hearing the petition filed by Aslam Bhurekhan seeking a ban on holding any religious ceremony in Ayodhya.

Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's government pleaded, inter alia, that a " 'bhoomi puja' be permitted or allowed to take place on the 67,703 acres of land" in Ayodhya, an "undisputed site" as it was put, as in its view there was no prohibition on such a ceremony under the 1994 Supreme Court judgment in the Babri Masjid case. Attorney General of India, Soli Sorabjee, told the Court, "we are aware of the imperonderables" and asked the bench "not to rake up the past."

The bench's observation was: "We don't want the December 6, 1992 incident to be repeated" and said they would do nothing to escalate the situation but rather take steps to defuse it. Mr Sorabjee was reminded of the government's undertaking in 1992 despite which the Masjid was demolished and asked him, "What will be the reaction to the symbolic puja in the current supercharged atmosphere? . . . . We are concerned with the 1994 order under which no part of the land vested with the Government can be used for any other purpose. It is very clear. As the situation now stands, is it correct for the Centre to take a stand that such a puja be permitted?"

The Indian Supreme Court's ruling was clear: "No part of the land shall be handed over by the government to anyone and the same shall be retained by the government till the disposal of this writ petition. Nor shall any part of the this land be permitted to be occupied or used for any religious purpose or in connection therewith."

The ruling was subject to further orders. It was additionally ruled that the correct interpretation of the 1994 judgement would be considered by a larger Bench.

Vajpayee's immediate reaction was to categorically inform his Lok Sabha that the government will implement the interim order of the court on the Ayodhya issue in "letter and spirit."

This they did. There was no disturbance. His government had previously clearly stated that the issue could be resolved either through discussions between the parties or through a judicial verdict, adding that as the government was the statutory receiver it was duty-bound to maintain the status quo in Ayodhya.

Let us come home to our side of the fence, to our Supreme Court and to the respect accorded to it by our democratic governments. The whole world and our honourable judges past and present, know that the Supreme Court of Pakistan, situated on none other than Constitution Avenue in Islamabad, was stormed in November 1997 by our democratic prime minister Nawaz Sharif and his equally democratic ministers and cohorts.

Not a living soul in this country, other than the ardent Muslim Leaguers, had any doubt that Sharif and the others responsible would be charged and convicted of having committed the gravest of contempts of court, in the very face of the court. He was not charged; a handful of his minions were.

After Sharif fell, having tripped over his own toes, the first Chief Justice of Pakistan of this military regime, Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, revived the matter (Criminal Appeal 162/99) and managed to convict seven of Sharif's 'footstorm troopers'. Having been involved in the Supreme Court's 1998 investigations into the storming and its hearing of evidence, on October 6 2000 I wrote to Chief Justice Khan:

"Dear Chief Justice

Storming of the Supreme Court - November 28 1997

Following the normal practice regarding sworn affidavits and other papers addressed to the Registry or Judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan at Islamabad, my affidavit sworn on September 27, 2000 was presented to the deputy registrar at the Supreme Court Registry at Karachi. The deputy registrar refused to accept it, and I was asked to send it to the registrar at Islamabad.

A special courier was flown to Islamabad and the sealed enveloped containing the affidavit was handed over to the Registrar at 0830 hours on September 28.

The sealed enveloped was bounced from one office to another (the courier's travails have been conveyed to you by my letter of September 29 2000) and finally the unopened sealed envelope was handed back to the courier by the Deputy Registrar at 1300 hours that same day. On the receipt he wrote: 'Applications received by mail are not entertained. Hence returned.'

I have been advised that no rule, regulation or law has been changed which empowers a deputy registrar of the Supreme Court stationed at any registry in the country to refuse to accept any communication.

If this be wrong, may I (and the people) please be informed.

By your judgement delivered on September 28, 2000, 1034 days after the storming of the Supreme Court, seven 'footstorm troopers' have been convicted and the buck was passed on to 'a superintendent of police'.

In this regard, I send herewith copies of editorials from the national press: Dawn, October 1, 2000; The Nation, September 30 2000; The News, September 30 2000.

Also sent is a reproduction of excerpts from my column 'Storming of the Supreme Court - 2' printed in Dawn on April 5 1998." (This concerned the first case in Britain in which the Court of Appeal had to consider contempt in the face of the Court (1970 2 QB 114), after a group of Welsh students, upset because programmes in Wales were being broadcast in English and not in Welsh, staged a dramatic invasion of the Court in protest.

The Court was invaded on February 4 1970, the students were sentenced the same day, their appeal was heard on February 9 and decided on February 11 - all within the space of one week.)

No matter how much time may pass, the people, our governments, and our judges must not be allowed to forget that this is the first case of its kind in the recorded judicial history of any democracy. It is unprecedented that a ruling party, a government of the day, has committed contempt 'in the face of the court' by perverting the course of justice with a preplanned invasion. The matter of the storming is sui generis and is not barred by the statute of limitation. We have not heard anything further about the 'buck' passed on by Justice Khan to the Islamabad Superintendent of Police. Is he still sitting on it? Where stands the matter today?

It may be that some future chief justice of Pakistan may be bold enough to revive this matter, redeem the honour of his court, and throw the book at Nawaz and his ministers and parliamentarians responsible for instigating and organizing the storming.

Enough to covict these lowly men stands on record. Little may be served by convicting and punishing these ousted disgraced 'democrats', but at least it will set a precedent and perhaps prevent any other 'democratic' prime ministers from staging stormings and invasions of their own apex court so as to save themselves from the ambit of justice.