“I am perplexed and disturbed. The constituion gives the right to every one and justice has to be given to everyone but in this case the justice has not been done to minorities,” Retired. Justice AK Ganguly said.
The decision was taken in favor of the Hindus on the basis of constant occupation of the outer premises.
How is the decision of the Supreme Court on dated 9th Nov’19, before you answer, people themselves say that let’s end the ruckus. But even then the first question remains, what was the decision like. It is indeed a matter of appreciation that the public faced it with restraint and maturity. That public would also like to know what the decision is like. She is not afraid of judgmental judgment. When this decision, which comes with consensus, will be taught in the class of law, then there will hardly be a consensus among the students. It is a historic decision, so it will not be reviewed today, but will be for a long time. Historical verdict, consensus decision but which part is written, it is absent. Live law has said that this has never happened in the history of the Supreme Court. Now see that in 2017, 9 judges gave a decision on the right to privacy. Consensus was decided but from the first page it is known which part is written by which judge. In this case, Allahabad High Court had more than 8000 pages, it is a matter of opinion that the Supreme Court’s decision is eight times less than 1045 pages. It will take less hard work, but it would be good that you also read this decision yourself. You will get to know a lot.
Only the Supreme Court allows that its decision can be reviewed. The court can also be requested to review the verdict and ordinary people can also review the verdict in their discussions. Just you cannot say that because of which this judge would have written so, if you add intention then you will have to face contempt. Generally, politicians decide on which decision of the Supreme Court will do politics and on which not. In the case of Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi decision, the court’s decision was fortunate that all political parties said that we will not do politics. will accept. But when the Supreme Court verdict came about Sabarimala in 2018, the BJP itself stood with the people opposing this decision. Did not say that we support the decision of the Supreme Court.
Home Minister Amit Shah’s statement about this decision is that we are with those who protest against this decision. Amit Shah had tweeted that in the case of Sabarimala the nation has witnessed a fight between religion, faith and devotion and the oppressive government of Kerala. The government is using its power to suppress the devotees of Ayyappa. At that time Amit Shah did not say that he is with the Supreme Court. It was not said then that the Government of Kerala should implement the decision of the Supreme Court. While the decision of Sabarimala was given by a bench of 5 judges. A female judge expressed her disagreement. Now this decision is also presented again for review before the bench of 5 judges. In March 2018, in the case of Scheduled Castes and Tribes Act, the Supreme Court ruled that no public servant would be arrested without investigation. India stopped against this decision. It killed 11 people. Scheduled Caste MPs came under pressure and the government had to change this decision within the Parliament. Now the Supreme Court has changed this decision. The decision of the two-judge bench was changed by the three-judge bench.
When political parties say that politics is not to be done on the decision of the Supreme Court, then it is their politics. Therefore reviewing the verdict is a sign of a mature democracy. The Supreme Court has started the operative part of its decision with Justice, Equity and Good Congress, which was discussed by Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Rajiv Dhawan during the debate. The judgment chronicles the long history of Justice Equity and the origin of Good Congress. It began in Rome. Later in the 16th century, the law made by the British got dissolved. No Hindi channel came to know that otherwise the headline would make that Rome came to Ram’s work and audience Ram’s work came to Rome. However, the principle of Justice Equity and Good Conscience was adopted because this principle of justice gives opportunity to the judges that when the law is insufficient, not enough, in a particular situation, then decisions can be taken on the basis of justice, equality and good conscience. . For this, seeing the basis of the decision taken in other countries is also not a mistake. The purpose of this is to state that in the present case also there are many aspects which do not fit on the scale of the existing law. Are there really many aspects of this case that our current laws did not have enough capacity to deal with? This is the question, but we do not have the answer. It has been underlined in the judgment that this is a dispute of 4 centuries. In the meantime, the Mughals ruled India, the East India Company ruled, the British ruled, and then the Constitution of independent India came into force.
The disputed campus has been on the land of Nazul since 1861 i.e. government land. The government has never claimed that the land belongs to us. In the revenue records of 1861, 1893-94 and 1936-37, this place has been called the birthplace. The revenue record does not mention the mosque, the royal mosque or the birthplace mosque. The evidence that there was a mosque on the ground is after the Awadh Annexation of 1856. No royal decree before 1856 could be introduced.
After this it was argued that since there was namaz there, it would be considered as the land of Waqf. The court investigates this matter with several decisions. Looks at how the decision has been given in such a case. The court says that it is then seen whether the place was used for namaz or prayer. On this basis, such decisions have been given in many cases that then it will be considered as Waqf land. The court says that between 1528 and 1856, proof of prayers was not presented. Therefore, it cannot be said that its use was being religious. When the railing is built in 1856, no one claims who owns the land.
During the British, the British recognized the religious right of the Hindus in the outer complex. Muslims also did not claim the outer campus. Nor were they using it after 1857. Questions are being raised on two aspects regarding the court’s decision.
The Allahabad High Court had asked the ASI whether the Babri Masjid was built on empty land or there was a structure earlier. The ASI did not say in its report whether the mosque was built after the temple was demolished. The ASI definitely said that the remains of old buildings are found under the ground, which look like temples. The ASI said that the time of construction of these remains seems to be 12th century. The court says that it is not clear from the ASI report that the 12th century structure was used in the mosque. The ASI has definitely said that the mosque was not built on the empty land. The court believes that archaeological evidence does not prove that the Hindu temple was destroyed for the mosque.
This was the biggest lie of this politics which was cleared by the court in its decision. There was so much uproar in North India in the name of breaking the temple and building a mosque, but this was not proved in the Supreme Court. A part of the decision of the Supreme Court is more important.
There is evidence that the Namaz was performed on 16 December 1949. The idol was placed there on the intervening night of 22/23 December 1949, after which the prayers were stopped. The Muslims were not evicted from this place on the basis of law, rather they were evicted from the prayer center.
The court in its judgment assured that the idol was kept in the mosque illegally on the night of 22-23 December 1949. Shouldn’t the court then say that the independent Indian courts took a stand on this incident, whether it was illegal and gave a decision in favor of the Muslims. Did not give Rather, when orders were given to remove the idol, the district administration refused to remove the idol. If it was unfair, what should have been justice. The Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. If this building is not destroyed, then what would have been decided in this case, it can be thought of. But the Supreme Court has given a decision on this incident with the same consensus, with the consensus that the matter has been decided. The structure of the mosque was torn down on 6 December 1992. The mosque was demolished in violation of the status quo order. The court was assured that the status quo would remain. The demolition of the mosque was an open violation of the rule of law.
These two decisions are very important in this decision of the Supreme Court. Thousands of people and many big leaders were involved in this work or were present at the time of demolishing the mosque, all of them were also active in the movement related to the construction of Ram temple. Are they also welcoming the decision of the Supreme Court, while the Supreme Court has considered that work illegal. Ram Maryada is considered Purushottam. The verdict in Ayodhya has come in favor of the temple where the limits of the Constitution were dismantled in 1949 and in 1992. The decision of the temple has come under the same constitution. If seen, where will all those criminals be at this time, what will they be thinking about this act, will they come before the court by remembering Ram that he had committed this crime. Will such people also be in the trust that has to be formed by order of the Supreme Court. How can those who are criminals of law, who have not been caught, be involved in any process related to temple construction? In April 2017, the Supreme Court had ordered that the trial should be completed within two years in the mosque demolition case. Two years have been completed.
The disputed land is a complete entity. The railing was built in 1856-57, but no land or ownership was divided. Even the Sunni Central Waqf Board could not give proof of the right to occupy the land. Hindus continued to occupy the outer premises and worship was continued. There were disputes in the Hindu and Muslim sides regarding the inner campus. The prayers continued till 16 December 1949. The decision was taken in favor of the Hindus on the basis of constant occupation of the outer premises.