After all decades long Ayodhya dispute has been resolved by the Supreme Court of India by giving its verdict on November 9, 2019. This verdict was pronounced by constitutional bench of 5 Judges of Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The special feature of this verdict is the consensus among the judges of the bench. No one expressed his differences of any point of the judgement which is surprising. Although this judgement on the decades long dispute is welcomed on the large scale but questions are raised from many corners on it too. For example former Supreme Court Judge Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly expressing his dissatisfaction on the judgement says that court cannot make history. No one saw destruction of a Temple on the site of the Babri Mosque, but destruction of Babri Mosque has been seen by all of us. The Duty of court is to protect the present structure on the disputed site. Earlier no one knows what was situated on the disputed site. So, no one can say that there was a Temple on the disputed site and it was destroyed for the construction of the Babri Mosque. According to Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly the verdict given by the constitutional bench headed by Chief Justice of India Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi is like to make history which is not the duty of court. This judgement means to construct a Temple on destroying a Mosque. This views of Justice Ganguly had been published in 'The Telegraph'.
Leader of All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and Member of Parliament from Hyderabad Barrister Aşaduddin Owaisi has said that the judgement of SC on Ayodhya dispute is not infallible, though Supreme Court is supreme. Owaisi said that we are not satisfied with this judgement. He asked if the Babri Mosque would be remained today on its site, Would Supreme Court give the same judgement as it gave? In fact Supreme Court had given judgement in favour of those who had demolished the Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992. To oppose the judgement its my legal right. As far as decision of giving 5 acre land to Sunni Waqf Board is concerned, Owaisi sees it as an endowment and advices Sunni Waqf Board not to accept it, Otherwise it will be alleged that Sunni Waqf Board sold out Babri Mosque site in return of 5 acre land.
In a sharp reaction, Member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board have said that when Supreme Court accept the event of the placement of Ram Idols on the night of 22/23 December 1949 secretly as an illegal action and the event of demolition of Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 is also an illegal action, then Why Supreme Court did not give judgement in favour of Babri Mosque? They say that we are not satisfied with this judgement. As far as 5 acre land in return of Babri Mosque site is concerned, we do not want it. We want justice and want such an atmosphere in which we can live according to the rights given by the Constitution of India. One Ex- Member of All India Personal Law Board has said that the trust of Muslim Community on Supreme Court has come to end because of this judgement as they understand to be treated unfairly. According to Faizan Mustafa, Vice Chancellor, Nalasar University of Law expressing his views on the Ayodhya dispute judgement, says "How belief of a community can be accepted as an evidence." This is a big question and it will give birth many unwanted suits in future. "The Judgement of Supreme Court on Ayodhya dispute is contradictory." says Mr. Mehmud Pracha a renowned Advocate. He further says that the Supreme Court has given the judgement in this dispute in favour of them who had demolished the Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 and violated the law of the land. He is of the view that fear in common Muslims now prevails about the thousands of Mosques situated near the Temples including Mathura and Kashi Mosques. Pracha expressing his fear about the protections of above Mosques inspite of a law enacted in 1991 by the Parliament that no place of worship would be changed from its present identity into another place of worship.
- Rohit Sharma Vishwakarma
Leader of All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and Member of Parliament from Hyderabad Barrister Aşaduddin Owaisi has said that the judgement of SC on Ayodhya dispute is not infallible, though Supreme Court is supreme. Owaisi said that we are not satisfied with this judgement. He asked if the Babri Mosque would be remained today on its site, Would Supreme Court give the same judgement as it gave? In fact Supreme Court had given judgement in favour of those who had demolished the Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992. To oppose the judgement its my legal right. As far as decision of giving 5 acre land to Sunni Waqf Board is concerned, Owaisi sees it as an endowment and advices Sunni Waqf Board not to accept it, Otherwise it will be alleged that Sunni Waqf Board sold out Babri Mosque site in return of 5 acre land.
In a sharp reaction, Member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board have said that when Supreme Court accept the event of the placement of Ram Idols on the night of 22/23 December 1949 secretly as an illegal action and the event of demolition of Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 is also an illegal action, then Why Supreme Court did not give judgement in favour of Babri Mosque? They say that we are not satisfied with this judgement. As far as 5 acre land in return of Babri Mosque site is concerned, we do not want it. We want justice and want such an atmosphere in which we can live according to the rights given by the Constitution of India. One Ex- Member of All India Personal Law Board has said that the trust of Muslim Community on Supreme Court has come to end because of this judgement as they understand to be treated unfairly. According to Faizan Mustafa, Vice Chancellor, Nalasar University of Law expressing his views on the Ayodhya dispute judgement, says "How belief of a community can be accepted as an evidence." This is a big question and it will give birth many unwanted suits in future. "The Judgement of Supreme Court on Ayodhya dispute is contradictory." says Mr. Mehmud Pracha a renowned Advocate. He further says that the Supreme Court has given the judgement in this dispute in favour of them who had demolished the Babri Mosque on December 6, 1992 and violated the law of the land. He is of the view that fear in common Muslims now prevails about the thousands of Mosques situated near the Temples including Mathura and Kashi Mosques. Pracha expressing his fear about the protections of above Mosques inspite of a law enacted in 1991 by the Parliament that no place of worship would be changed from its present identity into another place of worship.
- Rohit Sharma Vishwakarma
No comments:
Post a Comment