Twitterati question the Supreme Court’s reasoning behind Ayodhya verdict

While the Supreme Court’s verdict on the disputed title over the 2.77 acre plot of land in Ayodhya is on expected lines, and which was widely anticipated, a section of the Twitterati are clearly not amused.

Even as a relieved Chief Justice of India is taking his brother judges out for dinner tonight, as tweeted by an Associate Editor with the Times of India, others wondered if the verdict managed to deliver justice. Several people questioned the reasoning of the court in saying on the one hand that Gazetteers and accounts by travellers could not be relied upon, it appears to have relied on faith and belief of a community.

While the verdict says that title suits cannot be decided on faith and belief, it ends up doing just that. A baffled Twitterati wondered how to interpret the order but some were in no mood to mince their words.

Some of the initial tweets are as follows:

CJI Ranjan Gogoi is taking CJI-designate S A Bobde, and justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer for a dinner at Taj Mansingh to relax after the strenuous work involving Ayodhya land dispute judgment fructified today with a judgment

After holding 1949 installation of idols and 1982 demolition of BM to be illegal, SC rewards the vandals. What a precedent.

A wise man once told me true rule of law will only come in India when a rich man goes to jail for killing a poor man in a traffic accident. No sir, India is an equal- opportunity offender. It has just rewarded the mob that broke the law.

Big bang - universe created big bang to 1947: civilizational history. 1947: India a democratic state 1992: Place of worship demolished by a mob. Rights of Indian citizens hurt. 2019: Apex Court held demolition illegal, but given entire land to demolishers. I accept the verdict.

If the Gandhi Murder case was retried by the Supreme Court today, the verdict would have been Nathuram Godse is a Murderer but he is also a Desh Bhakt.

Respect the verdict. It’s time for closure.

This is not the first time faith has been accommodated in Indian legal jurisprudence. During UPA 1, affidavit was withdrawn which mentioned Ram as mythological figure. 2nd affidavit had to be filed in context of Ram Sethu.