NEW DELHI: Former Supreme Court judge Justice RF Nariman has expressed his disagreement with the 2019 Supreme Court judgment on the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case. He called it a “great travesty of justice,” saying that it did not uphold the principle of secularism.
Speaking at the first Justice AM Ahmadi memorial lecture on ‘Secularism and the Indian Constitution,’ Justice Nariman remarked, “In my opinion, a great travesty of justice was that secularism was not given its due by these judgements.” Justice Nariman, however, said the judgment had a “silver lining” as it upheld the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991.
The former SC Judge also disagreed with the reasoning behind the court’s decision to grant the disputed land, despite ruling that the demolition of the mosque was illegal. “The mosque itself was built in 1528. Then, the mosque continues as a mosque until, there was trouble in 1853. This is the first time there is trouble. After there is trouble, just as the Crown is due to take over in 1858 from the East India Company, a wall is built by the British between the inner and outer courtyard. Inner courtyard was the precincts of the mosque and the outer courtyard was just outside the precincts. After that British wall, prayer was conducted by both sides. So, outer courtyard, the prayers were conducted by Hindus and inner courtyard by Muslims.”
Justice Rohinton Nariman to deliver Ahmadi Foundation Inaugural Lecture
“So, it’s a recorded fact that prayers were conducted on both sides right from 1857 up until 1949. In 1949, 50-60 people stormed the mosque and put idols as a result of which, all Muslim prayers ceased,” Nariman said.
Justice R F Nariman also referred to the 2003 report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which found artefacts linked to various groups, including Shaivite, Buddhist, and Jain traditions. He highlighted an important observation made by the Supreme Court in the case that “there was no Ram Temple under the (Babri Masjid) structure.”
“Despite the finding that Muslims were praying from 1857 to 1949, the Court said they cannot say they were in exclusive possession and this side was disputed. Court said it was disputed in the sense that egregious attempts were made to dislodge them contrary to rule of law, which is the finding of the court. 3 times it happened. It happened in 1857, 1934, and 1940. They go on to say that therefore, we cannot say that this side is undisputed. Whatever this means. Since this side is now undisputed, we cannot say they have exclusive possession of the inner side. Therefore, this is one composite whole and we now jump to the conclusion that the composite whole now belongs to Hindus,”
Justice Nariman said.
“One other very important finding. Every single time, it is the Hindu side which has done something contrary to the rule of law. For that, reparations have to be made. What was the reparation? One would have thought they will rebuild the mosque. But it was we will give them some land to build a mosque on their own. In my humble opinion, it was a great travesty of justice that secularism was not given its due at all by these judgments,”
Justice Nariman added.
Highlighting concerns over recurring disputes, he said, “Today we find hydra heads popping all over the country. We find suits after suits not only against mosques but also against dargahs. All this, according to me, could lead to communal disharmony. The only way to scorch and cauterize all this is by applying these five pages in this very judgement and having it read out in every district court and high court. Because these five pages are a declaration by the Supreme Court which binds each of them.”
Justice Nariman also mentioned that Surendra Yadav, the special CBI judge who acquitted all accused in the mosque demolition case, received a post-retirement position as deputy Lokayukta in Uttar Pradesh. He remarked, “This is the state of affairs in this country.”
