Monday, Jul 13, 2020 | Last Update : 02:05 AM IST

111th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra25442714032510289 Tamil Nadu138470895321966 Delhi112494899683371 Gujarat41906291982046 Karnataka3884215411686 Uttar Pradesh3647623334934 Telangana3467122482356 West Bengal3001318581938 Andhra Pradesh2916815412328 Rajasthan2334417634499 Haryana2038114912297 Madhya Pradesh1720112679644 Assam15537984936 Bihar1503910991118 Odisha11956797273 Jammu and Kashmir92615567149 Kerala7874409532 Punjab71404945183 Chhatisgarh3526283514 Uttarakhand3305267246 Jharkhand3192217022 Goa203912078 Tripura177313241 Manipur14357930 Puducherry120061916 Himachal Pradesh110182510 Nagaland6733030 Chandigarh5234037 Arunachal Pradesh2871092 Mizoram2031430 Sikkim134710 Meghalaya113451
  Opinion   Edit  18 Nov 2019  Ayodhya: SC review advisable

Ayodhya: SC review advisable

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Nov 19, 2019, 12:07 am IST
Updated : Nov 19, 2019, 12:07 am IST

The court accepts the Babri Masjid stood for 464 years until its 1992 demolition by lawless mobs led by top BJP and VHP leaders.

Supreme Court of India
 Supreme Court of India

At least one party to the Ayodhya dispute, in which the mosque side lost the title suit when the Supreme Court delivered its verdict on November 9, has announced its decision to seek a review of the judgment. The courts are known not to easily grant a relook, but in this case, arguably the most complex  title dispute in Independent India, the Supreme Court would be wise to accept that there might be room for modification.

The Ayodhya judgment seems full of glaring self-contradictions. After accepting practically everything the mosque side argued, it has given the title to the temple side in an unbelievable reversal of logic.

The court accepts the Babri Masjid stood for 464 years until its 1992 demolition by lawless mobs led by top BJP and VHP leaders. It also accepts that archaeological evidence doesn’t support the motivated propaganda that the mosque was built on the remains of a destroyed Hindu temple. And yet the court awarded the title to the Ram Lalla deity.

While doing so, it didn’t bother questioning that the deity’s “next” friend (speaking for the deity) was related to the VHP, which was instrumental in the “criminal” act of the mosque’s destruction.

Under our constitutional system, while all Indians are bound to accept a Supreme Court judgment, even when it appears strange, the court should be ready to admit it may have been in error, at least in part, if not wholly.

Pro-mosque entities, even if they accept the November 9 verdict without demur while being deeply disappointed, are unhappy about accepting as “restitution” five acres of land  to build another mosque. Accepting the verdict must not entail accepting the restitution, no matter how well-intentioned.

Tags: ayodhya dispute, supreme court