Ayodhya case: A disappointing verdict, say lawyers

Even before the split verdict in the Supreme Court on 1994 Ismail Faruqui case could be read on Thursday, September 27, the chorus for building the Ram temple could be heard on the streets. The majority decision of the three-judge bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra and comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was that this case would not be referred to the larger bench of the Supreme Court as demanded by the petitioner Siddiq.

Justice Nazeer disagreed with the majority decision and stated that it should have been referred to a larger bench. Reading the majority decision, Justice Ashok Bhusan said “It need not be read broadly to mean mosque can never be essential to practise Islam”.

Disappointed by the verdict Rajiv Dhawan, petitioner Counsel in Ayodhya title suit case tweeted “Majority judgement will please majority, minority judgement will please minority. Very problem we started off with hasn't been resolved. Not about arithmetic, but of convincing everybody that SC should've spoken in one voice”.

This points us to the sad story of the verdict that minority judgment will please minority and majority judgement will please majority so where is the Justice then, asks lawyers.

Senior Lawyer and convenor of Babri Masjid Action Committee, Zafayab Jilani is happy with the court verdict. “The decision clarifies our apprehensions and there is not a single word against us. In my view both the parties are satisfied and there is no issue of worry for both the parties. Judges have already stated in their judgement that this decision has nothing to do with title suit case.”

Though, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy has patted his back stating that now all the impediments have been removed from exercising his fundamental right of praying at the Ram temple in Ayodhya, Zafaryab Jilani said, “Subramanian Swamy approached the Supreme court to hear his plea but the court rejected his plea by saying his petition has no scope.”

On Swamy’s claim of his victory, senior lawyer Mehmood Pracha said, “Rejection of Swami’s case is a huge setback. He has been shouting on TV that it is the fundamental right of Hindus under Article 25 to pray at a place where Lord Ram was born but the court said nothing on this.”

This is a title suit, says Pracha emphatically. “I had been saying that Swamy’s case was only an incidental issue. It is a title dispute between Ram Lala, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni waqf board. In this it does not matter to which religion the claimant belongs to. This is simple title suit nothing to do with Hindus or Muslims.”

However, Pracha is not happy as the case is being pursued by petitioner M Siddiq. “The lawyers representing the Siddiq has created an impression as if the petitioner is running or shying away, whereas he has a strong case and his opponents are on weaker wicket.”

“The biggest lacuna in this whole case is this that there should be a case for maintaining the status quo ante which means that before the Court decides the title suit, the court must decide on the status quo ante. While the suit is on, if any petitioner meddles with the status quo, then the first thing that should be done is to maintain the status quo ante, in which ante means before the point being argued or adjudicated by the court. This means that the Babri Masjid must be first rebuilt and then the title suit must be considered” opines Pracha.

Indresh Kumar of the RSS says, “We have full faith in God and court and now the bench will decide about the title suit soon. It’s not a question of mosque or temple. There are lot of temple, mosques, churches and Gurudwara but like Mecca, or Vatican the birthplace of Ram is one.” He gives no direct answer that when the Ram temple will be built.

After the verdict, Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi tweeted, “It would have been better if this issue was referred to Constitutional bench. Also, I have an apprehension that the enemies of secularism in this country will use this judgment to realise their ideological objectives”.

Outwardly, it appears that there is nothing major in the Ayodhya verdict, but people are ready to hit the streets in the name of Ram. The Supreme Court will begin hearing on the Ayodhya matter from October 29, 2018, to decide the suit on merit. The ruling dispensation seems ready to do everything to make this a political issue under which all issues of public concern such as demonetisation, petrol and diesel price rise, weakening of the Rupee, unemployment, farmers issues and inflation will be buried.