Follow Us
Satya Prakash
The Supreme Court’s historic verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute calls for a national celebration as it resolved a vexed issue that defied any solution for centuries. It’s also a testimony to the fact that democratic institutions in India are capable of handling such disputes within the constitutional framework.
Delivered unanimously by a five-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, it establishes the SC’s authority as the final arbiter of disputes — irrespective of their nature, magnitude and the parties involved.
Notwithstanding certain statements by some Muslims leaders, the verdict has been accepted by people in general. The fact that UP Sunni Central Wakf Board — which lost the title of the 2.77 acre disputed site where once Babri Mosque stood — has welcomed the decision and said it would not seek a review of the verdict alludes to the wider acceptability of the legal outcome.
One is reminded of the court’s Mandal verdict (Indra Sawhney vs Union of India, 1992) after which the violent movement against reservation in government jobs for OBCs subsided and people moved on. Ayodhya verdict is expected to have similar impact.
Second, the case involved history, archaeology, culture, religion, belief and politics. The Ayodhya land dispute was never an easy case. It was open to the court to take the easier route of belief. Preamble of the Constitution does talk about “Liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship” and Article 25 recognises one’s right to religion. Such a course could have easily turned the case in favour of Hindu parties as Ayodhya as a place doesn’t have any religious significance for Muslims. But in the end, the court decided the case purely on the basis of well-established legal principles.
Third, the Bench steered clear of the conflicting claims based on religious belief. “This court, as a secular institution, set up under a constitutional regime must steer clear from choosing one among many possible interpretations of theological doctrine and must defer to the safer course of accepting the faith and belief of the worshipper,” it said.
Fourth, while accepting Ram Lalla as a juristic person, it rejected the problematic proposition of declaring Ram Janmbhoomi itself as a juristic person, for it would result in the extinguishment of all competing proprietary claims to the land in question.
“Our courts cannot reduce questions of title, which fall firmly within the secular domain and outside the rubric of religion, to a question of which community’s faith is stronger,” it said. Fifth, the Bench had the sagacity to declare that it can’t right a historical wrong. “The legal consequences of actions taken, proprietary rights perfected, or injuries suffered in previous legal regimes can only be enforced by this court if they received implied or express recognition by subsequent sovereigns. Absent such recognition, the change of sovereignty is an act of state and this court cannot compel a subsequent sovereign to recognise and remedy historical wrongs,” it said.
For such issues a Truth and Reconciliation Commission on the lines of the one in South Africa is a better option.
Sixth, while recognising the faith of common Hindus, it condemned the act of Babri mosque demolition as violation of rule of law. Seventh, in title suits one either wins or loses. But given the complexities and sensibilities involved, the top court adopted a different approach. While Ram Lalla got the title of the 2.77 acre in question, it ordered the UP Government to give 5 acres to the UP Sunni Wakf Board in Ayodhya for construction of a mosque.
The SC has often been criticised for misuse of Article 142. While exercising its powers under Article 142, it acts like Plato’s Philosopher King who is guided by wisdom and sheer passion for common weal and is not bound by boundaries of law.
By using its extraordinary powers under Article 142, the judges perhaps wanted to give a message that there is place for mosque as well in India. It also directed the Centre to accommodate Nirmohi Akhara — which has managed the temple for long — in the proposed trust.
Ayodhya dispute tested the patience of India as a democratic republic. But in the end, the verdict is about reconciliation and healing touch which heralds a new beginning of hope and harmony.
‘Courts can’t right historical wrongs’
.
1
4
8