Wrong Precedent and Wrong Perception – Impact of Supreme
Court Judgement on Ayodhya Issue
Dr.
S. Zeyaul Abrar Husain
Finally, the verdict is out for one of the longest, most awaited and sensitive legal case of India – The Babri Masjid – Ramjanambhoomi case. The five-judges bench of Supreme Court of India has delivered its judgment stating that 2.67 acre of disputed land be given to Mandir and a separate plot of 5 acre to be allotted for construction of Masjid. Cursorily looking, it seems a fine and balanced judgment, however it is not. There are so many contradictions and unanswered questions.
After acknowledging that acts of 1949 (placing of idol) and 1992 (demolition of Babri Masjid) were illegal and in complete violation of law and order; allotting disputed land to same group of people/organizations who were involved in those acts is surprising.
A wrong precedent has been set where forceful occupation of a premises has been termed legal, though indirectly.
The wrong perception, that Babri Masjid was built after demolition of an existing temple, will be there in common people’s mind as not everyone is going to read the finer points of SC judgment which clearly states that it has not found any evidence to prove that Babri Masjid was built after demolishing any temple. Many will think that Babri masjid was an illegal structure that’s why SC ruled in favor of temple.
Status Quo of original structure was not taken into consideration.
If Babri Masjid has been intact its original shape today, has it been the same verdict? If not, then how land has been given to those who directly/indirectly linked to perpetrators of demolition.
Supreme court has just settled the issue by
taking a middle path. There is difference between equality and justice, this
verdict seems to be aimed at providing equality (that too, to a lesser extent)
but not justice. There is no guarantee that there will be no such cases in
future, and if we go by the popular slogans of the original movement behind
this issue, this could just be a starting point for larger scheme of things.
One the other hand, giving land for Masjid
at another site itself is an acknowledgement that wrong has been done with the
parties fighting for Masjid in the past and this alternate piece of land looks
like a consolation prize for fighting the legal battle for years. It was case
for title suit, if Masjid side lost the case, then that’s all; allotment of
alternate land suggests that there some guilty feeling for the turn of events
and outcome of the case.
In conclusion, the verdict leaves many
points unanswered and its confusing for a common man to fully understand this.
Last but not the least; will there be
similar fast tracking and expedition in ongoing criminal case for demolition of
Babri Masjid. If not, then many will feel deceived including Me!
Dr. S Zeyaul Abrar Husain is a research scientist, currently working in a multinational company. He writes about social and political issues in country on various platforms like Milli Gazette, Qaumi Awaz, Democracia.in, Hastakchep.com etc.
