oppn parties Ayodhya: Supreme Court Was Neither Strict Nor Patronizing, It Went By Law

News Snippets

  • SC will examine whether a ban should be put in place to prevent tainted politicians from contesting elections
  • RBI governor Shaktikanta Das says there are limitations on monetary policy and the economy needs structural reforms to spur growth
  • Centre, citing the gravity of the crime, assigns the Elgar Parishad case to the NIA to preempt the Maharashtra government from handing it over to SIT to be formed for the purpose
  • Billionaire investor George Soros says in his speech at Davos that Prime Minister Modi is creating a Hindu nationalist state
  • IMF chief Kritalina Georgieva says growth slump in India is temporary and momentum will improve going ahead
  • CJI S A Bobde says excessive taxation is a form of social injustice
  • Nitish Kumar says senior JD(U) leader and former bureaucrat Pavan Varma is free to leave the party after he criticizes the party's alliance with the BJP in Delhi
  • The government approaches the Supreme Court to fix a 7-day deadline for filing of mercy pleas by death row convicts
  • SC reinstates the woman staffer who accused former CJI Ranjan Gogoi of sexual harassment
  • Anupam Kher and Nasseruddin Shah clash over politics. Shah calls him "a clown" while Kher says Shah is a habitual critic of famous people
  • More than 100 Muslim clerics meet Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray and demand that the state assembly pass a resolution against the CAA and does not implement it in the state
  • BJP calls the Congress "Muslim League Congress"
  • USA says Pakistan has limited options on J&K
  • India rejects US President Donald Trump's mediation in J&K
  • India plunges 10 spots on democracy index, now at 51st place
India beat New Zealand by 4 wickets in the first T20
oppn parties
Ayodhya: Supreme Court Was Neither Strict Nor Patronizing, It Went By Law

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.

There are several things that come out in the Supreme Court judgment in the Ayodhya land dispute case. The first is the fact that the court went by the Archaeological Society of India’s (ASI) finding that the mosque was not built on vacant land. Once this was accepted, it went without saying that some structure had been razed to build the mosque. Although the ASI did not expressly say that a Hindu temple was razed, the very fact that its excavations below the mosque found structures with distinctly Hindu motifs provided circumstantial evidence of the same.

Second, the court was categorical in stating that that the Muslim petitioners had failed to prove “exclusive possession” prior to 1857. Accounts of many English travelers from that period point to the fact that both Hindus and Muslims used to pray at that site. While both prayed without hindrance in the inner dome, the Hindus started praying outside when a fence was erected by the British in 1858, ostensibly to prevent disputes. The Supreme Court was of the opinion that Muslim claims to the land fell flat in the face on not proving that they were in exclusive possession of the property before 1857 and only they had access to perform namaz at the masjid.

These two were clinching arguments for the court. But the court also said that the act of damaging, desecrating and demolishing the Babri Masjid was illegal and the perpetrators must be punished. It declared that the acts of desecrating the masjid by placing idols inside the inner dome on the night of December 22, 1949, and the demolition by a group of so-called kar sevaks on December 6, 1992 were blatantly illegal. It said both these acts guided it to balance its judgment by providing a parcel of land at an alternative site for the Muslims to build a mosque. While some Muslims have termed it khairat or charity, it is permissible for the Supreme Court to use Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver complete justice in a case. Since a Muslim structure was demolished, even if they could not prove ownership of the land, complete justice demanded that a site is provided to them to reconstruct the mosque. The Supreme Court has done just that and there is no charity involved in this. The Sunni Wakf Board has indicated that it will decide whether to accept the land very soon.

No judgment, however balanced, can please anyone. But if the evidence presented and arguments made convinced the judges that the disputed land belonged to the Hindus, there was no way they could have divided it like the Allahabad High Court just to please others. That would not have been justice. That would have been a way to say that since we do not know how to settle this vexed question, we will please all. The court has gone by the material on record. The only additional thing it has done is to award a 5-acre piece of land to the Muslims in order to set right the wrongs perpetrated in the desecration and demolition of the Babri Masjid. The Supreme Court has neither been strict nor patronizing. It has done what needed to be done as per law and used its discretion where permitted. Instead of cribbing and nitpicking, as some are doing, people should see this as a balanced judgment and move ahead. Religion has captured the political agenda of the country for long. Now let us replace it with talks of education, health, building infrastructure and economic growth.