On 9th November 2019, the Supreme court of India
declared the most important and most anticipated verdict on the “Ram
Janmabhoomi case” envisaging the right to the disputed land at Ayodhya to a government
appointed trust directing it to go ahead with building the Ram Temple. The
whole dispute which took decades to reach a judgement on, is a classic case
entangled in a quagmire of religion, faith and above all politics. A sort of
politics, whose foundation is to kindle the emotions of the people based on
religious fanaticism. It is appreciated of the Supreme Court to come to a
conclusion and deliver its judgement on the case, but however the verdict not
just raises a number of questions and concerns but also places the whole
independence of the judiciary in deciding legal matters under question. More
importantly, it sets a precedent, which will have long lasting implications for
the Legal fabric of India.
The Prime Minister of India, Mr. Narendra Modi, issued a
statement mentioning that the verdict should not be considered as a victory or
a defeat to any of the parties to the dispute. The Prime Minister’s statement,
even when taken in its true sense, neglects the fact that, one party to the
dispute has already emerged victorious in the quagmire. Whether they consider
it as a victory or not is immaterial. It is a victory also to a number of other
entities, It is the victory for the dangerous concoction of religion and
politics, it is victory for the religious fundamentalism that lead to the
destruction of the Babri Masjid, it is victory for the numerous incidences of
mob justice manifesting in the country and it is victory for Bharatiya Janata
Party, whose poll promise itself was to build the Ram temple at the disputed
site. It is also a defeat, a defeat to the independence of the judiciary, a
defeat to the any legal argument to a land dispute, and a defeat to everyone
who believes in the secular fabric of the country as enshrined in our
constitution.
Among one of the jurisdictions
of the Supreme Court is that of the “Court of Precedent” which means, the precedent
set by the Supreme Court is binding on all the courts in the country. Now what
does it mean to the judgement in the Ayodhya Verdict? Taking religion out of
the equation, the judgement in the Ayodhya land dispute case will also set the
precedent for the rest of the land dispute cases in the country. This only
crudely translates to anyone can lay claim to any piece of land as long as the original
structure on that land is destroyed. It is very clear that there was a Masjid
present at that location before 1992, and it is also very clear that the
structure was destroyed in the violent demonstration held at that place on 6th
Dec 1992. Now, the question is to whom should the land belong to, as the
structure stands destroyed.
Again, taking religion, politics and faith out of the whole
imbroglio, like the court should have done, if none of the parties to the
dispute can claim rights to the land, it belongs to the government and the
government has to choose what it wants to do with the land, whether it wants to
rebuild the destroyed structure, build a school, a hospital, leave it vacant or
even a Ram Mandir, is completely up to the government, and the honorable court
as per law should not be the one making the decision what needs to be built.
This being the case, is it right of the Supreme Court to direct the building of
the Ram Mandir? What sort of jurisdiction does the court have to direct a trust
to build a Temple or a Mosque or any other structure it might please? Is the Judiciary
getting into the already perilous mixture of Religion and Politics? Is the
court trying to get into majoritarian politics, losing its independence as the
apex court of India? Will the same precedent be applied for all the other land
dispute cases in India? What about the historical significance, forget the
religious significance of the destroyed structure? Why a destroyed structure of
historical significance, is not being rebuilt even when it is crystal clear
that it was there and it was destroyed? Why is the court considering the
findings of the Archaeological survey of India into consideration? If that be
the case, based on archaeological evidences, does the native Indus valley people
of India be able to lay claim to the destroyed structures in the Indus Valley,
as long as they can provide genetic evidence proving that they are descendants
of the people who lived in the Indus Valley? There is a reason why it is called
as archaeology, meaning Ancient. Every structure, including the modern flats to
multiplex to shopping complexes are not built on vacant land, but destroying an
underlying structure, in most cases disputed. Does it mean archaeological
evidence can be considered as material evidence in a modern land dispute case?
Is the court trying to correct history? If that’s the case how far are we
willing to go in order to correct history? Or is it plain simply the court is
taking the side of the ruling majoritarian party and delivering a judgement to
appease the ruling party? What about the independence of the judiciary?
Unfortunately, the verdict raises a number of questions, but
not enough answers, but one thing is very clear, the Ayodhya verdict did not
end on 9th November, but will have legal ramifications across the
country for a number of years to come.
