Hon'ble Supreme Court Should Refrain from Passing a Judgment on the Ayodhya Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid Matter, in View
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Dated: 7.11.2019 To HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BHAGWAN DAS ROAD NEW DELHI 110201 Hon’ble Supreme Court should refrain from passing a judgment on the Ayodhya Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid matter, in view of the manifest massive manipulation of the issue and associated judicial process, by the ruling dispensations (be it Congress or BJP) to implement their political agendas. Judiciary has not yet adjudicated upon the 70 years old criminal fraud committed against the nation by so called ‘Hindu’ groups who planted Ram Lalla idols in the Masjid. The Congress, with help of the administration and Judiciary, maintained status quo in order to keep the Muslims trapped as a vote banks for decades – now the BJP has taken over with the diference that they are scaring Muslims to make inroads into Hindu vote bank. Four conspicuous Issues I. Criminal case fled on 23.12.1949, on installations of idols in Babri Masjid, (u/s 147, 448, 295, in Faizabad) II. Criminal matter on Babri Masjid demolition 1992, (initiated by Liberhan Commission, currently with CBI since 2017) III. Supreme Court Judgement 1994, Ismail Faruqi case regarding ‘Masjid not essential to Islam’ (1994, 6 SCC 360) IV. Supreme Court Judgement 1995, ‘Hinduism not a religion’ (Citation 1996 AIR 1113), (PM Modi speeches in Vancouver 17.4.2015, PTI) Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, Let me state at the outset that I, the undersigned, am not aligned to any political ideology. Kindly see the disclaimer at the end of the letter. I am writing this as an ordinary senior citizen concerned about this very sensitive and volatile national issue, guided by my fundamental duties enshrined in Article 51 a. of the Constitution of India. I had earlier fled an intervention petition before this Hon’ble Court, in the matter of pending appeals with regards to Ayodhya case which was listed before the bench vide IA No. 1-2/2017 D.5827/ in I.A_33 -34/2016. In your wisdom, you dismissed all intervention applications at that stage. In a recent speech at Gauhati High Court, your lordship has reiterated a very vital aspect of Justice “Today I feel compelled to assert that judges and judicial ofcers must remember that public faith and confidence, on which our institution lives and survives, is largely built on the basis of orders and judgments passed by us”. Justice should not just be done but seen to be done. It is crucial to point out that as far as the history of Ayodhya matter is concerned, the public perception is that so far, the Judicial process, hand in glove with the administration of the day, has played a biased role. The entire nation is now watching very closely, as the political hype over the issue has never been shriller. The far reaching inherent powers of the Supreme Court arising through Article 142 of Constitution, combined with the withdrawal of appeal by Sunni Wakf board, has placed what may well be called a double Brahmastra in the hands of this Hon’ble court. I have reason to believe that passing any judgment (either in favor of Muslim, Hindu, government, or any other way), without addressing certain core issues, would not only be a grave miscarriage of justice and a blot on the independence of judiciary in post independence India, but will open space for multiple disputes across the country. The ruling party is creating an impression among public that a Judgment in favor of the Mandir is a foregone conclusion – and talking aggressively about the construction of Mandir. They are advising Hindus to use restraint in their celebrations after the Judgment and maintain peace, even while they whip up passions – ensuring there would be law and order problems should there be even the slightest obstacle to the Mandir. Even the Prime Minister, in a recent episode of Man Ki Baat , has spoken on need to remember the restraint and balance shown after the Allahabad High Court Verdict. But an important difference at that time was, the atmosphere had not been nationally vitiated as today, and litigants also had the option of Appealing to Supreme Court. There is a lot at stake as far as the Ayodhya Judgment this time around is concerned – and the Judiciary needs to apply its highest wisdom, in considering all legal, social and political aspects of the matter. Past, present and future. Some of the core issued that need to be dealt with – so that Justice may be seen to be done, are: 1. There are two, related, pending criminal cases in the said matter, non–addressal of which will raise serious questions on competence and integrity of the Judiciary. A). One is the FIR fled on the morning of December 23, 1949, reporting the offence of trespass of illegally and forcibly planting Ram Lala idols in the Masjid premises by Hindu miscreants, which reinforced the fraud of “miraculous appearance” of Ram Lala idols, placed in the central dome of the Babri Masjid the previous night, with full collusion of local administration – which set into motion the chain of contentious events that have led us to this nationally volatile juncture. Not only was the criminal matter not followed up – the crime was legitimized by: a) Hindus were granted the right to perform Puja before the illegally placed idols; b) the Judiciary accepted Ram Lala as a party to the dispute in 1989; c) In 2010 the High Court declared Ram Lala as one of the benefciaries of the disputed property. B). Another is the collective bulk of criminal cases arising from the illegal demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December, 1992. In 2017, this Hon’ble Court invoked Article 142 to transfer the 25 year old criminal matters from Rae Barreli to Lucknow. In other words, a much delayed matter that was nearing completion in the lower Court, would be further delayed. If the Hon’ble Court proceeds to pass judgment in favor of the Hindu Litigants without frst addressing these criminal cases, it shall be viewed as a move to legitimize the forcible fraud of Ram Lala as well as the illegal demolition of Babri Masjid, both acts done with intent of land grab and illegal possession. Moreover, the said two criminal cases shall be rendered infructuos in view of legalization of illegal acts, and would only set a dangerous precedent. 2. Two Supreme Court Judgments in confict with Right to worship: Any decision based on grounds of Right to worship would be in confict with two earlier judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court itself in 1994 and 1995, which contradict and nullify the claims of both ‘Mandir’ and ‘Masjid’ sides. A). In a 1994 Judgement, in the Ismail Faruqi case (1994, 6 SCC 360), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a Masjid is not a requirement for Muslims in order to offer namaz or worship. B). Subsequently, in a 1995 judgment (Citation 1996 AIR 1113), Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that Hinduism is not a religion; it’s a way of life. Interestingly, on April 17, 2015, in a speech in Vancouver, the Prime Minister Mr. Modi reiterated and re-afrmed the message of this Judgment, “The Supreme Court has said that Hindu dharma is not a religion but a way of life.. I believe the SC’s definition shows the way”. In that case, under what reasoning can the Supreme Court take into consideration arguments of so called ‘Hindu’ litigants based on “Aastha”/ right to worship / religion? Therefore, in order to decide this case on the basis of requirements of faith and worship, Hon’ble Apex Court must frst distinguish the two judgments hereinabove cited. Such judgments of Supreme Court also raise questions as to the authority of the Judiciary in deciding / interpreting matters of religion and faith. Such judgments of Supreme Court also raise questions as to the competence of the Judiciary in deciding matters of religion and faith. Islam is a faith practiced worldwide and the writ of the Supreme Court of India only extends to the territorial jurisdiction of India, therefore, is the Supreme Court of India competent to prescribe methods of religious practice for Muslims who owe the origins of their religious practices beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India? Or, is the Supreme Court of India competent to prescribe separate religious practices for Muslims of India while practices in other parts of world remain differentt 3. ‘Title’ dispute or a matter of ‘Faith’: A clear distinction needs to be made by this Hon’ble Court whether this matter is a title dispute or a matter of faith. During the course of proceedings before subordinate courts, litigants Ram Lala Virajman and Sunni Waqf Board were the only two parties that demanded land for purpose of worship. They were later joined by Nirmohi Akhara demanding land for the same purpose before the Supreme Court. The motive behind this move appears to be collusion between parties to turn a title dispute into a matter purely of faith and worship, so that the Court is manipulated into circumventing the title dispute, in tune with political benefciaries of the dispute. Judiciary cannot aford to be perceived as holding two contrary opinions that on one hand ‘Hinduism not a Religion’, and on the other hand give credence to “Right to Religion” arguments of Hindu litigants (both of which benefit the same ruling party). 4. Mediation Panel: The manner of setting up the Mediation Panel also muddies the waters. It is not understood as to what was achieved by appointing predisposed elements such as Sri Sri Ravishankar on the mediation panel, who are well known campaigners for Mandir in Ayodhya.