The Ram Janmabhoomi Verdict:
Putting an end to a thirty-year-old battle, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court recently pronounced the judgment in the Ayodhya land dispute case. In what has been criticised, the decision though, on the one hand, described the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992 as “an egregious violation of the rule of law”, has ruled in favour of the Hindu litigants. The finality of the judgment giving Hindus the title over the disputed land. It said that balance of probabilities of what has come on record, and the Hindu plaintiffs have a better title over the area in Ayodhya as against the claim of the Sunni Waqf Board. In an interview with The Wire, former Supreme Court judge, Mr A.K. Ganguly has said that the judgment has ‘placed a premium on the mosque’s demolition’. In a manner, as also told by Ganguly, that if the Babri masjid were not demolished then by Hindutva enthusiasts, as mobilised by the Bhartiya Janta Party [BJP] and Vishwa Hindu Parishad [VHP], it would have been demolished now by order of the court.
Would the court order the demolition of the Babri Masjid, asks Ganguly.
Justice Retd. A.K.Ganguly said the court would not have directed for the demolition of the Babri Masjid if it was still standing there today. In a manner, the judgment thus suggests that the destruction of the Babri Masjid, 27 years ago was justified. Ganguly said that the decision is an encouragement to an ‘unfortunate trend to a non-secular trend’ of attacking the religious places of other religions. He deposes that if he were on the bench, he would have given it a secular outlook by not allotting the much-disputed land to any one religion. He said he would not allow either the building of a mosque or a temple but rather dedicate it secular and public-welfare purposes like a hospital, school, college etc.
Moreover, the judgment has been criticised on the ground to decide a case of land dispute on archaeological findings. Report by Archaeological Survey of India, which has been heavily relied upon shows a gap of four centuries between the pre-existing structure of a temple and the construction of the Babri Masjid. Therefore, as per the evidence on record, there has been no evidence to show that a Hindu religious structure was demolished to build the Babri Masjid. Even Retd. Justice A.K. Ganguly said that the dispute is not around the existence of a mosque on the land, the argument is whether the Babri Masjid built by demolishing a Hindi temple. However, the Supreme Court jumped to a decision based on the ASI report, which is itself inconclusive over the subject, whether the underneath structure. It is very well probable, the structure could be of any religion or not at all a religious structure. Therefore, it is erroneous to conclude that the land belongs to Hindus as the birthplace of Ram Lalla, as the gap of four centuries remains unexplained.
Belief is the last laugh here, says Mustafa:
Professor Faizan Mustafa, Vice-Chancellor of NALSAR Hyderabad, has also criticised the decision by saying that one religious belief has weighed above over the rule of law in giving the judgment. Moreover, he also noted that the judgment is like a “reparation”, allotting five acres of land to the Muslim plaintiffs, which is double the size of the disputed area. The judgment has tried to incline itself with a majoritarian point of view, keeping the judgment balanced. Mustafa said that belief had been weighed over every other concern. The decision has not struck the right balance between the religious freedoms of both the parties, as noted by Mustafa, ‘faith is the last laugh here’. Justice Ganguly has shown concurrence with opinion of Mustafa, saying a title dispute cannot be decided based on the faith of any one party. It seems as if the claims of the Muslim litigants have been compromised for the ‘peace and tranquillity’ in the country. The judgment bases itself on the accounts of travellers and historians, who have described Hindus offering prayers at the site where the Babri Masjid later stood. Accounts of travellers and historians thus became the point of evidence to conclude that Hindus used the Babri Masjid as a place of worship.
Moreover, from the end of the Muslim litigants produced records to their hold of the land, including land revenue documents. However, the accounts of travellers and historians are weighed above revenue documents, as the former preceded the latter.
The anonymity of the separate view on the issue of whether it is the birthplace of Ram Lalla, not a common practice.
Though the judgement in the case is unanimous amongst the five-judge constitution bench, there appears a separate view on the issue that whether as per the faith and belief of the Hindu plaintiffs, Ram Lalla, the Hindu god was born on the said disputed structure. However, what attracts attention is the missing name of the judge giving a separate view at the end of his 116-page observation as added in the addendum. This has been said to be ‘a deviation from the standard practice of judgment’, ‘very strange and very serious’, given it is a judgment of the Supreme Court. The separate view states that:
“It is thus concluded on the conclusion that faith and belief of Hindus since before construction of Mosque and after that has always been that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed.”
India Today states that this is not a commonplace practise while delivering the said judgment as the name of the author has not been mentioned. It says it is not usual to keep the ‘author of the judgment a secrete nor does the name of the judge writing an addendum is usually kept under wraps.’
