What The Two Courts Said… The Allahabad HC judgement of Sept 30, 2010:
* It partitioned the disputed site equally among the 3 parties: Muslims, Hindus & the Nirmohi Akhara
* Said that, going by Hindu belief, Ramjanmabhoomi is indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram
* The idols placed under the central dome of the mosque in 1949 were to remain where they are
The Supreme Court order of May 9, 2011:
* Says Allahabad court verdict strangely brought a new dimension of partitioning to the case
* Asks how the HC could have passed such a decree when none of the parties had sought partitioning
* Says further proceedings related to the decree will also remain stayed. Status quo will be maintained.
Is the Supreme Court’s May 9 stay on the vexatious Ayodhya verdict a reaffirmation of the primacy of law over faith? If so, was the Allahabad High Court’s judgement of September 30, 2010—which ruled, on the basis of Hindu belief, that Lord Ram was indeed born at Ramjanmabhoomi—a triumph of faith over law? If the answers to the two questions are in the affirmative, the last word is yet to be written on Ayodhya.
Which is perhaps why Justice Hosbet Suresh (retd), formerly of the Bombay High Court, is cautious when he says, “The apex court’s stay on the execution of the Allahabad order might hopefully lead to a more meaningful judgement in future.” Most constitutional experts and lawyers Outlook spoke to pointed out that one should not read too much into the SC’s stay order, for a final verdict hasn’t been handed down yet.
What Justices R.M. Lodha and Aftab Alam did in their order was to stay the Allahabad High Court’s direction on a three-way division of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site—a 120 feet by 90 feet plot—in Ayodhya.
The court had decided that the land be partitioned between Ram Lalla (the deity, represented in legal matters by Ravi Shankar Prasad, a senior BJP leader); the Sunni Wakf Board; and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu party active in the Ayodhya dispute. Calling the Allahabad court’s judgement “something strange”, the order stayed the trifurcation by ordering status quo at the site. The Supreme Court judges observed: “The fundamental nature of the decree (partition of land) was not sought by any party. The high court has gone on a very new path. This is something surprising.
Something very strange has been done by the HC on its own when no party had sought such a relief.” Indeed, the “strange” September 2010 verdict had troubled everyone, not just because of the division of the disputed land, but also because, in awarding the place exactly under the central dome of the Babri Masjid to the Hindu side, faith seemed to assume primacy over law. That was the criticism at that point. The recent apex court order has also directed that no religious activity will take place on the 67 acres acquired by the central government adjacent to the disputed land and structure.
**********************************************************************
 “The Allahabad HC went by faith, which has not been proved, and in the process, it ignored the law.” Rajeev Dhavan, Constitutional expert |
 “Why didn’t the govt keep out trespassers who put idols there? And why didn’t courts halt the demolition? Justice Hosbet Suresh, Ex-judge, Bombay HC |
|
|
|
||
 “The Supreme Court’s order is not a final judgement. Work has to begin now on a lasting solution.” Soli Sorabjee, Jurist |
 “At the moment, it’s a work-in-progress. As the SC order is not a judgement, status quo has to be maintained.” Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Lawyer, Cong spokesman |
|
*************************************************************************
That the courts (lower and higher) have “missed” the chance of pronouncing verdicts since 1949, when the installation of idols under the central dome of the Babri mosque took place, or in 1992, when the demolition of the mosque by a mob took place right in the glare of the media, has only made jurists like Hosbet Suresh cynical when he says it is the courts that have kept the issue alive instead of pronouncing a judgement and settling the matter once for all. “What prevented the administration from removing the trespassers who had placed the idols inside the mosque? Or again, what prevented the court from handing down a judgement when the criminal act of destruction of the mosque in 1992 was watched by everyone? Nothing was done either by the courts or the district administration,” he says.
Indeed, the progress of the Ayodhya issue from the lower courts to the high court to the Supreme Court only reaffirms the view that the judiciary has also managed to keep the issue on the backburner. Which is perhaps why constitutional expert Rajeev Dhavan says the Supreme Court could have gone a step further in its order, but concedes that perhaps judicial reticence for the sake of peace prevailed. “The apex court is right in observing that a title suit should not be converted into a partition suit. The Allahabad High Court went by faith, something that has never been proved, and ignored the law.” According to him and many other lawyers, the Supreme Court just reminded everyone about the primacy of the law. But BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad says he doesn’t see the present order as a play between the supremacy of law over faith. “Under the Indian legal system, the concept of a divine manifestation of a supreme being is not being questioned,” he says.
“The legal concept of deity is crucial to faith and the courts have not disputed that at any time. What they have done merely is to put on hold a trifurcation ordered by the high court, one we did not seek. The petitioners, both Hindus and Muslims, later had objections to the partition being ordered by the Allahabad court and that’s what has been stayed now. Both sides later wanted the entire disputed site to be awarded to them. We are hopeful that the issue will be decided with a lot more clarity now as there is voluminous evidence to back our claim.” But Soli Sorabjee, an eminent jurist, warns against reading too much into the Supreme Court order. “It’s just an order, and not a final judgement.
Work has to begin now,” he says. Echoing that indeterminate view, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, spokesperson of the Congress, strikes a cautious note, saying, “At the moment, this is still a work-in-progress. Since this is not definitive judgement, the ground reality has been maintained, pending a final decision.” The restraint shown this time by political parties in the wake of the Supreme Court order is in sharp contrast to the joyous reaction of VHP leaders and the lawyers—who flashed the ‘V’ sign in September last year—when law took a leap of faith. The VHP was happy that the disputed site had been recognised as Lord Ram’s birth place by the high court. The BJP, in its victory, was sombre and said peace must prevail. In the wake of the recent Supreme Court order, the party says it is hopeful that the courts will eventually favour the Hindu side.
–Source: Outlookindia