Is Ayodhya verdict justiciable?

Article No. 29
23/November/2019 

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical, and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot of land in the city of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. The issues revolve around the control of a site traditionally regarded among Hindus to be the birthplace of their deity Rama, the history and location of the Babri Masjid at the site, and whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to create a mosque.

The mosque there, the Babri Masjid, was destroyed during a political rally which turned into a riot on 6 December 1992. A subsequent land title case was lodged in the Allahabad High Court, the verdict of which was pronounced on 30 September 2010. In the judgment, the three judges of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77 acres (1.12 ha) of Ayodhya land be divided into three parts, with ​1⁄3 going to the Ram Lalla or Infant Rama represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, ​1⁄3 going to the Sunni Waqf Board, and the remaining ​1⁄3 going to Nirmohi Akhara.

The final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute was declared by the Honorable Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019. The Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the purpose of building a mosque.

This judgment of Honorable Supreme Court of India may be seems to be practical in the present political situation of the country, but it is doubt about complete justice to case. Analysis of this case has two side, one is practical side and another one is justice side. As God is good and just, it not best idea that bending justice for practical concerns.

Voices of Justice

Commented by Justice A.K. Ganguly, who retired from the apex court in 2012 : “If the Babri Masjid was not demolished, and Hindus went to court saying that Ram was born there, would the court have ordered it to be demolished?” he asked, adding, “[The court] would not have directed it.” According to him, the judgment is flawed given that there has been no evidence to show that the structure underneath Babri Masjid was actually a Hindu structure in any way. He also said that the judges should have either ordered the mosque to be rebuilt or that the land be given to the government for a neutral purpose. “That there was a mosque is not disputed. That it was vandalised is not in dispute. We all saw it being demolished,” he said. According to him, the demolition of the Babri Masjid cannot be celebrated by Hindus: “The demolition of a mosque, is not any part of Hindu faith or Hindu religion. It is totally anti-Hindu to demolish a mosque.”

Ganguly questioned how the Supreme Court could have surmised that the structures underneath the Babri Masjid were Hindu structures, given that the ASI report on the subject was inconclusive. “Now the Supreme Court says that underneath the mosque there was some structure. But there are no facts to show that that structure was a temple. The Supreme Court’s verdict says they don’t have evidence to say that a temple was demolished and a mosque was built. There could have been any structure below – a Buddhist stupa, a Jain structure, a church. But it may not have been a temple. So on what basis did the Supreme Court find that the land belongs to Hindus or to Ram Lalla?”

Even though it is a religious issue, this matter is not concerned with theology or doctrine of any religion. But it is property dispute between Hindu and Muslim. Ganguly agreed with legal scholars like Faizan Mustafa who has also analysed the Supreme Court’s verdict and said that the court has chosen the Hindu faith over the Islamic faith. “Can you settle a title based on the faith of one party?” asked Justice Ganguly. He said that the fact that this note is unsigned is also a deviation from standard practice of judgments and calls it “very strange and very serious. A judgment of the Supreme Court is a very serious matter.”

Another former SC Judge Markandey Katju noted that The Ayodhya Verdict is Based on a Strange Feat of Logic. It is foolish to think the Supreme Court’s decision will bring about communal peace. Appeasement, like the Munich pact of 1938, only whets the appetite of the aggressor. A bully snatches a kid's sandwich in school. He also thrashes the kid's friend who comes to his rescue. The teacher intervenes and let's the bully keep the sandwich, and gives the kid a slice of dry bread. The principal appreciates the teacher and calls it a 'balanced judgment'.

Practical side and myth matter

As India is a Hindu majority country, there are many implementation difficulties to justice. Implementation issue aroused because of political support from BJP manifesto. But BJP ruling central government handled this issue tactfully without any major issues so far in this country due this verdict. If congress ruling government was in power, they will be unable to handle in this way for similar judgment.

“Absent the faith and belief of the devotees, the land holds no distinguishing features that could be recognised by this court as evidence of a manifestation of God at the disputed site. It is true that in matters of faith and belief, the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence”, ruled the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya verdict.

The court, ignoring its earlier judgments under the freedom of religion, said that it cannot scrutinise any religious belief or examine its rationality. The court, in fact, ignored its own ‘essentiality doctrine’.

Justice is absolute

Justice is absolute and ultimate. It does not pervert for implementation difficulties or practical concern. It is not meaning and purpose of justice. All judgments supposed to meet this criteria will enhance trust in public institutions among people.

By,

Nithin A F

Doing Post Graduation in Psychology

Thiruvanathapuram, Kerala.

Email : nithinaf@gmail.com

www.NithinAF.blogspot.com

23/November/2019