The Supreme Court in India has cleared the way to build a temple on Ayodhya on November 9, announcing the disputed land.

A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Justice Ranjan Gogoi unanimously pronounced the verdict in favor of the temple but also said that breaking the Babri Masjid was an illegal act.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court has admitted that there was a structure under the mosque which was not Islamic, but also said that Indian archaeologists did not claim that the temple was demolished and built a mosque.

When this decision came, different interpretations started. But former Supreme Court judge Justice Ganguly was among the first to raise questions on the Ayodhya verdict. The main question of Justice Ganguly is that he did not understand the basis on which the Supreme Court decided to give the disputed land to the Hindu side.

On all these issues, BBC Indian languages ​​editor Rupa Jha spoke to Justice Ganguly and asked him what and why was his objection to the decision. Justice Ganguly says that the way this decision was given, it bothers him.

He said, "Babri Masjid was there for about 450-500 years. This mosque was demolished on 6 December 1992. Everyone has seen the demolition of the mosque. A criminal case is also going on. This bench of the Supreme Court has also called the demolition of the mosque illegal and criticized it. Along with this, the court decided that the land of the mosque belongs to Ramlala i.e. Hindu side. There is no evidence that the mosque was where the temple was and was built by demolishing it. It was said that there was a structure under the mosque but there is no evidence that it was a temple. ''

Justice Ganguly says this is his first objection. Explaining the second objection, he says, "Archaeological evidence has been built on the basis of disputed land giving." But it has also been said that the archaeological evidence cannot decide the ownership of the land. In such a situation, the question arises, on what basis was the land given? ''

The Supreme Court has referred to travelogues in addition to the archaeological evidence in this decision on Ayodhya. To this, Justice Ganguly says, "The travelogue cannot be evidence." History also cannot be proof. If we will rely on the evidence based on archaeological excavations, what structure was there before, then where will we go through it? ''

"Here the mosque was there for the last 500 years and ever since the Constitution of India came into existence there was a mosque there." All Indians have enjoyed the right to religious freedom since the coming of the constitution. Minorities also enjoy their religious freedom. Minorities have the right to follow their religion. They have the right to defend that structure. What happened to the Babri Masjid demolition? ''

Says Justice Ganguly, "In 2017, para 22 of State v. Kalyan Singh, the Supreme Court has said that the Babri demolition was a crime that has hurt the secularism values ​​of the Indian Constitution." This case is still going on and the person who has committed the crime is yet to be convicted. There is no doubt that crime has taken place and this has seriously violated the values ​​of secularism written in the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court has said this. It is yet to be decided who committed the crime? ''

Will the Babri demolition case not reach a logical conclusion now? In response to this question, Justice Ganguly says, "I don't know what the end of it will be." But the Supreme Court has strongly condemned the Babri demolition. The Supreme Court had done this in the past and also in this decision. Now you are giving that land to the Hindu side and its basis is archaeological evidence, travelogue and faith. ''

"Will you decide on the basis of faith?" How would a common man understand this? Especially for those who do not understand the stakes of the law. People have seen a mosque here for years. Suddenly that mosque was demolished. It was surprising to everyone. It was also a shock to the Hindus. Those who are real Hindus cannot believe in the demolition of the mosque. It is against the values ​​of Hindutva. No Hindu would want to break the mosque. The mosque that will break is not a Hindu. There is tolerance in Hinduism. The inspiration of Hindus has been Chaitanya, Ramakrishna and Vivekananda.

Justice Ganguly says, "The mosque was demolished and now the court has given permission to build a temple there." Those who broke the mosque had this demand and the demand has been fulfilled. On the other hand, the Babri demolition cases are pending. Those who broke the law and order and worked against the constitution received no punishment and decided to build a temple on the disputed land. ''

"I have been a part of the Supreme Court and respect it but the matter here is of the Constitution." The fundamental duty of the constitution states that scientific rationality and humanity should be promoted. Along with this, public property should be protected, mosque was public property, it is part of the fundamental duty of the constitution. Breaking the mosque was a violent act. ''

If Justice Ganguly had to make this decision, what would he have done?

In response to this question, Justice Ganguly says, "This is a hypothetical question. Then I can say that if I had to make a decision, I would first restore the mosque and at the same time take the people into confidence so that fairness and the secular values ​​of the Constitution are established in the process of justice. If this cannot be done, then I do not make any decision in favor of anyone. Here a secular building could be ordered which could have a school, museum or university. The temple and mosque would have been ordered elsewhere, where there was no disputed land. ''

A separate appendix has been added to the Judgment of five judges on Ayodhya and there is no signature of any judge in it. What does Justice Ganguly think on this? Justice Ganguly said that this is unusual but he does not want to go on it. How will this decision affect democratic India and the judicial system?

In response to this question, Justice Ganguly says, "This decision has led to fewer answers and more questions. I am shocked and disturbed by this decision. I have no personal case in this.''

What effect will this decision have on the Babri demolition case? Justice Ganguly said that he hoped that its investigation should be done independently and the matter reached its end.''

(Click here for Android APP of IBTN. You can follow us on facebook and Twitter)

Share This News

About sharing