[Video] Conclusions Of The Ayodhya Judgment Not Matched By Its Reasons: Justice (Rtd)AK Ganguly

Former Supreme Court Judge Justice AK Ganguly opined that the conclusions of the Supreme Court Judgment in the Ayodhya Case are not matched by its reasons.Justice Ganguly was speaking on the topic 'The Consequences of Ayodhya Judgment of Supreme Court' in an event organised by South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre."I am reminded of what was done by Justice Krishna Iyer, the great Supreme Court judge, when the Supreme Court delivered the Shah Bano judgement, the then Central government wanted to pass a legislation and it did pass legislation to nullify the fate of the judgement and criticizing that legislative endeavour of the then Central government. Justice Krishna Iyer wrote an open letter to the then Prime Minister Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. And there he said, you have a duty to speak when it is a matter of national crisis, you owe a duty to speak, maintaining silence is a delinquency. Therefore I've come here inspired by what Justice Iyer said because I think as a former judge of the Supreme Court and as a very humble student of law I have a duty to speak on this occasion within a month of the delivery of the judgement."Justice Ganguly started with saying that he has read the judgement, except the addendum. And that he has never heard in his humble career as a judge of 18 years that there can be an addendum to a judgement. He went on by saying that the judgement is running into more than 900 pages, it concludes with its relief. He added, "after the judgement concludes, there comes an addendum. It is neither a dissenting judgement or a concurring judgement. So I have not read the addendum. Reading more than 900 pages itself was a task and I have completed the task". He said, after reading the judgement, his first reaction in one sentence is that the conclusions of the judgement are not matched by its reasons, rather they're mutually destructive and also that while the reasons are along the side, conclusions suddenly comes in a different way. He analysed the judgment further, by saying that this dispute about Babri Masjid cannot be considered in isolation on this judgement only. He said that there are two other Supreme Court judgements of great importance and that these judgements decides some controversies, like: 1) It is said that the mosque was built in 1528 AD by or at the behest of Babur which has been concluded. It is also said that the mosque was not built on a vacant land, there were underlying structures. This judgement discusses in great details, the excavations by the Archeological Survey of India. And discussing those in details and relying on them, the judgement mentions that there were some 12th century structures underlying underneath the Babri Masjid. 2) The Masjid was built on the 16th century, the structures underneath are of the 12th century. There is no history of the intervening 4 centuries. And the judges have concluded that it cannot be said that by demolishing a temple the mosque has been built. This is a conclusion of great importance, says Justice Ganguly, because, the previous judgment where the mosque was demolished, in Ismail Faruqui verdict, the government reference was precisely on this point which the learned judges refused to answer, but this has been answered now. Now, the judgment has noted, several attempts of encroachment made by Hindus on this mosque. While explaining these aspects briefly, he mentioned that, it is said that in 1856 and 1857, communal riots took place as Hindus tried to encroach the land and the British government constructed the grilled brick wall outside the mosque, bifurcating the inner courtyard where the mosque was situated and the outer courtyard where the Hindus were offering their prayers. Further on analysing the judgement, he pointed out that, according to the Supreme Court, in the present case, evidence is there of a construction of a wall separating the inner and outer courtyard and there was construction of a platform called Ramchabutra by the Hindus on the outer courtyard where it was considered as the place of worship by the Hindus. It was constructed in the year 1856 and 57, because the Hindus could not enter the mosque as the Britishers prevented them by constructing a brick wall with grill. Then in 1885, about 30 years thereafter, the Hindus filed a suit. This suit was filed by Mahant Raghubir Das, claiming a right to build a temple on the RamChabutra and seeking an injunction from others restraining him from constructing the temple. The suit was dismissed on the ground that to allow the construction of a temple on the proximity of a mosque, will create law and order problems. Then the Hindus challenged this decision by filing the first appeal which was eventually dismissed with the findings that the mosque was constructed 358 years ago and there will be law and order problem and the process cannot be reversed by allowing a temple to come up. Later, the second appeal was taken before the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh and the same...

[Video] Conclusions Of The Ayodhya Judgment Not Matched By Its Reasons: Justice (Rtd)AK Ganguly

Arabhi Anandan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Arabhi Anandan

[Video] Conclusions Of The Ayodhya Judgment Not Matched By Its Reasons: Justice (Rtd)AK Ganguly

Arabhi Anandan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Arabhi Anandan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers