Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

NOVEMber 16, 2019

Making Sense of the Ayodhya Verdict


Do judicial discretion and the resultant directions guarantee complete justice?

O
f the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Babri Masjid title mosque as part of whatever scheme the union government
suit, it can be said that its silences speak just as loudly draws up under the Ayodhya Act.
as its words. That to truly understand the essence of the But, the question still remains: Is this “justice”? If the Hindu
Court’s judgment, we need to not only understand what it is case was indeed established according to law, what particular
actually saying but also what it is choosing not to say. aspect of the “complexities of human history and activity” has
Having granted the title to the disputed 2.77 acre property to prompted the Court to direct the union and Uttar Pradesh (UP)
the deity “Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman” and its guardians, one governments to offer land to the UP Sunni Waqf Board?
wonders why the Court felt the need to issue the eight direc- The answer is not too hard to find. The Court notes, without
tions that it did. After all, this is essentially a title suit (pending equivocation, that the Babri Masjid was desecrated twice: first
since 1949) between a range of Hindu and Muslim parties in 1949 when it was broken into in the dark of night and idols
claiming the land on which the Babri Masjid stood, and if the were placed under its central dome, and second in 1992 when a
Court is certain that the title to the property belongs to the mob of kar sevaks demolished the domes of the Babri Masjid in
deity, we must ask why it should be concerned with what full public view. Yet, the Court has not allowed either of these
happens to the property thereafter. two events to affect the legitimacy of the Hindu claims to the
There is the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 property. It has placed its reasoning quite firmly on the faith
that empowers the union government, which took over the and belief of Hindus that the Ram Janmabhoomi was under
property in question post 1993, to hand it over to any trust or the central dome of the Babri Masjid, giving no weight to the
authority subject to certain conditions. Consequent to the Ayodhya Muslim claim that the mosque was in fact in use as a mosque
verdict, the Court could have left it to the union government to even post 1857.
use its powers under the Ayodhya Act in whatever manner the What the Court has therefore chosen not to say is simply this:
government saw fit, but, instead, chose to prescribe very specifi- We accept that the Hindu parties’ case has been strengthened by
cally how it should do so. We wonder why the Court felt the illegal acts in 1949 and 1992, but we will nonetheless allow them
need to do this, and if the union government will ultimately to take advantage of the same. We hope the Muslim parties will
comply in exactly the way the Court intends. be satisfied with what we have offered them because we certainly
The source of the Court’s power to pass such directions cannot offer them justice for the illegal acts of 1949 and 1992.
is traceable to Article 142 of the Constitution, which it is The Court’s eventual directions in the case can at best be seen
supposed to exercise when “it is necessary to do complete jus- as an act of judicial charity. Complete justice requires that
tice between the parties.” The directions do not appear out of notwithstanding its conclusions on the title, the Court remedies
thin air. The judgment of the Court goes into some detail as to the injustices of the events of 1992 in a real and meaningful
why this power is needed and exists in the Constitution—that way. The Court’s own history in this matter is revealing—it took
sometimes it is necessary to overcome the “silences” of posi- no effective action against the then UP chief minister for failing
tivist, statutory law given the “complexities of human history to protect the Babri Masjid despite its own orders; it has allowed
and activity.” deadline after deadline to pass unmet as the criminal trial
Seen this way, one could draw the perhaps justified conclu- against those accused of the mosque’s destruction proceeds at
sion that while the Hindu parties were successful in establishing a snail’s pace.
a legal case to the disputed property, the Muslim parties also The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Babri Masjid title suit
need to be made whole in some way, therefore ensuring an is by no means the “complete justice” that the powers under
equitable outcome. It has therefore mandated the grant of land Article 142 are required to be used for. It is, at best, “incomplete
to the Sunni Waqf Board to be used for the construction of a justice” or, at worst, “complete injustice.”
Economic & Political Weekly EPW NOVEMber 16, 2019 vol lIV no 45 7

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen