SEARCH

News » National

Updated: May 10, 2011 08:29 IST

Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya

J. Venkatesan
Comment (6)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
The Supreme Court, while staying the judgement of the Lucknow bench of the High Court to divide the disputed site into three parts, ordered status quo at the site.
The Hindu The Supreme Court, while staying the judgement of the Lucknow bench of the High Court to divide the disputed site into three parts, ordered status quo at the site.

Decree on partition of land is strange, says Justice Lodha

The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad High Court verdict that directed division of 2.77 acres of land of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya into three parts among Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara.

A Bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, admitting a batch of appeals from both Hindu and Muslim organisations, stayed the September 30, 2010 judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the High Court and directed the parties to maintain the status quo at the site.

Those who filed the appeals included the Sunni Central Wakf Board, U.P.; the Nirmohi Akhara; the All-India Hindu Mahasabha and Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman.

Senior counsel P.P. Rao, Anoop Chaudhary, Ravi Shankar Prasad, M.N. Krishnamani, Ranjit Kumar, K.N. Bhatt and C.S. Vaidyanathan appeared for various parties.

They unanimously urged the apex court to stay the High Court verdict and restore the status quo order passed by the Supreme Court in 1994 and March 2002 in respect of the activities on the 67.703 acres of government land acquired in January 1993.

This prompted Justice Alam to tell counsel: “At least on one issue, all of you are unanimous. The High Court has granted a new relief, which nobody has asked for it. The High Court has done something on its own. It has to be stayed.”

New dimension

Justice Lodha told counsel: “The High Court's judgment is something strange. A new dimension has been given by the High Court as the decree of partition was not sought by the parties. It was not prayed for by anyone. It has to be stayed. It's a strange order. How can a decree for partition be passed when none of the parties had prayed for it? It's strange. Such kind of decrees cannot be allowed to be in operation. It is a difficult situation now. The position is that the High Court verdict has created a litany of litigation.”

The Bench said the status quo at the disputed site would remain as directed by the 1994 Constitution Bench and the order passed on March 13-14, 2002.

Except puja, no religious activity

The Bench, taking note of the 2002 order, directed that on the 67.703 acres located in various plots detailed in the Schedule to the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993, “which is vested in the Central government, no religious activity of any kind by anyone be permitted or allowed to take place.” The Bench, while directing the status quo to continue, made it clear that the existing “pujas” in the make-shift Ram Lala temple at the disputed site would go on as usual.

In its appeal, the Wakf Board assailed the High Court judgment. It contended that the suit was decided on the basis of belief/faith of a section of the Hindu community for which there was no admissible evidence. The court had wrongly held that a temple existed at the site in dispute before the construction of the Babri Masjid, while there was no evidence to prove the existence of any such temple or demolition thereof in or around 1528 AD.

It argued that the claims of Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara over the disputed site were mutually exclusive and could not be shared.

The All-India Hindu Mahasabha sought endorsement of the September 30, 2010 minority verdict by Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, who favoured handing over of the entire land to Hindus.

It said: “The judgment by Justice S. U. Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal should be set aside to the extent that one-third of the property in dispute has been declared in favour of Muslims and to allot the share to them.”

India's highest judiciary(Supreme Court) must put an end to this Ayodhya's land dipute as far as possible than taking more time to resolve it.The memory of the past is so dark and dismal that hardly anyone be it the Hindus or the Muslims or anybody want to think about it but want a complete solution in the matter which has been going on for long without any positive outcome.It is better to be hoped that the Supreme Court will arrive at a conclusion which shall be accepted by them who are fighting for a piece of land in the name of preserving their religion and their god.Indian politics must not rear its ugly head to play with the people's emotion as well.

from:  Janga Bahadur Sunuwar
Posted on: May 13, 2011 at 22:18 IST

The need of the hour is not really for a court ruling which will only be disputed over and again for years to come, but rather a creative solution by all religious / political parties, civil society activists, general public.. to uphold the values that this country has stood for. Why not a museum-shrine dedicated to the nation? A museum-shrine which will remind us of the luck we have to live and learn in a multicultural and multireligious society like India, and also remind us more importantly, the horrors of communalism.

from:  luhar sen
Posted on: May 11, 2011 at 09:42 IST

The supreme court's order to stay the Allahabad High Court Verdict on the Ayodhya issue is a welcome move. Honourable courts should deliver verdicts not based on faith but based on fact. At times such verdicts may not taste sweet for everybody. Now, it is the responsibility of the supreme court to put an end to this matter once for all with a verdict which is fact based and safegaurd the trust, people of India have on the judicial system.

from:  Sathesh Selvamani
Posted on: May 10, 2011 at 10:38 IST

Hai Ram! a perennial legal tangle this really is besides being a perennial source of high income for the lawyers. It may also help keep religeous sentiments at a high pitch which then can be exploited by political parties for perhaps many more years. It is time that socil activits, re

from:  K.Vijayakumar
Posted on: May 10, 2011 at 08:08 IST

I appeal to all the parties & Supreme court, to construct a hospital in that area, which will be for all and above religion. Hospital Mgmnt committee could have representaion from all the parties & also from supreme court.

from:  Ashok
Posted on: May 10, 2011 at 06:47 IST

The proves the courts cannot solve the issue.The issue must be solved through unity spirit of give and take by the government.The politicians will politicize the issue.

from:  v.hariharan
Posted on: May 10, 2011 at 05:08 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

International

Tamil Nadu

Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka

Kerala


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in National

In this file photo people stand by the banks of the Pangong Lake, near the India-China border in Ladakh. After Prime Minister Narendra Modi raised the issue of Chinese incursions in Ladakh with Chinese President Xi Jinping, India on Saturday said it was carefully following the process initiated by Mr. Modi.

India awaits outcome of process initiated by Modi on Chinese incursions

"Diplomacy is not an instant coffee... You are aware that India at the highest level has taken it up... therefore, allow this process to function,” says Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Syed Akabaruddin. »