The Ayodhya verdict is out and although quite a few issues still remain unclear about the judgement with many saying ‘Have to go through the entire verdict before commenting’, there is no doubt about one thing though – the dispute continues.
Although many had predicted that the matter is more likely to head forward to the Supreme Court, not many would have thought that both parties would want to approach the Apex Court after the Allahabad High Court delivers its verdict.
Visibly disappointed by the verdict of the Court, with a feeling that injustice has been meted out to them, the Muslim contingent made it clear that it will approach the SC, its last resort. However, the Hindu Mahasabha too doesn’t seem to be satisfied with the verdict and they put it across in clear terms immediately after the verdict was out, that they too would be knocking the SC door to get back the one third land that has been ordered by the HC to be given to the Muslims!
For a layman, a few things do look unusual about the verdict. The most striking among them is the difference of judgement among the judges themselves. It really is puzzling as to how can judges differ in their view about the verdict to be given, especially in a case as big as the Ayodhya one. In the synopsis copy of the verdict that was released by the Court, Justice Sudhir Agarwal says that ‘the building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple’. On the other hand, the findings of Justice S U Khan, say that ‘No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. The Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque’.
Justice Dharam Veer Sharma in his judgement says that ‘The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure’, and that the disputed building ‘was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque’.
Here, there is a fair bit of contradiction between the statements of Justice Sharma and Justice Khan. Justice Sharma says that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple and therefore is not a mosque at all as Islam does not allow such a mosque to be built. Justice Khan on the other hand says that the mosque was not built by demolishing a temple and that it was ‘constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque’, thereby ruling out the statement of Justice Sharma that it was built against the tenets of Islam and that it is not a mosque at all.
What all judges seemed to have agreed to though is that the place was indeed the Ram Janmasthan, as claimed by the Hindus. The Muslims continue to argue that the judgement has been given based on ‘faith and belief’ of the Hindus and not facts proving that the area was indeed the birthplace of Shri Ram. However, they have been given a portion of the disputed area.
What was also amazing was that the court allowed the idol of Shri Ram to fight the case considering it as a person and a litigant. Justice Sharma has said that the “Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child”, and therefore, Ram Lalla walked away with the one third share of the disputed property.
Another question that most lawyers and experts asked post-verdict announcement was as to why the court shared the disputed property when it was a case of deciding the title suit?
The verdict, does give one an impression that an attempt of ‘something for everyone’ has been made. With the entire country anticipating the much awaited verdict and the case being a very very sensitive one, it might well have been a case of the court looking for ‘peace in pieces’ which is why it divided the land into three parts.
To find out whether that really is the case, and to decide what Ayodhya should finally be... it’s over to the Supreme Court.
Comments
Add new comment