It wouldn’t be an understatement to say that the verdict has left the Constitution defiled and defaced. It is true that it has put an end to a decades-old dispute but, in the process, the Supreme Court has also put an end to many precious constitutional values like neutrality and secularism. It is most astonishing that the apex court, being a neutral institution, has gone to the extent of directing the Centre to construct a Hindu temple in a place where Hindus and Muslims had once worshipped. The court has issued this direction despite finding that there was no proof whatsoever that there was a Hindu temple on which the Babri Masjid was built. Having condemned in no uncertain terms the Hindutva forces for their role in planting the idols and demolishing the mosque, the court bent over backwards to reward the perpetrators, instead of punishing them. Further, the unanimous nature of the judgment has surprised everyone (Editorial, “Peace and justice,” Nov. 11).
N.G.R. Prasad,
K.K. Ram Siddhartha,
Chennai
Thank god, the ongoing struggle between the Hindus and the Muslims on who is entitled to construct a temple or build a mosque at the disputed site has come to an end. The Supreme Court has delivered its judgment much to the relief of all parties. The Waqf Board has agreed to respect the verdict. But I feel that this political wrangle could have been resolved much earlier. Had the Supreme Court applied its mind even more seriously, it could have delivered the same judgment earlier.
Mani Natarajan,
Chennai
While pronouncing the verdict on the disputed land in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court observed that the acts of damage to the Babri Masjid in 1934, placing of idols in 1949 and the demolition in 1992 were serious violations of law. The case against kar sevaks is pending in courts for decades. The haste and initiative shown by the judiciary in ordering immediate construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya has not been shown in the long-pending case against the culprits who demolished the mosque. It is seen that the apex court has given its verdict only based on faith and religious belief (Editorial, “Peace and justice,” Nov. 11).
D. Sethuraman,
Chennai
A unanimous 1000-page decision given by a five-judge Constitution Bench following a 40-day hearing is legally too complex for a layperson to critically evaluate. The lay question, rather concern, that one has is: if all other facts, evidence and arguments were the same, but the mosque still stood unharmed, would the Supreme Court have still arrived at the same decision, and ordered the destruction of the masjid for building a temple? This is one question the judges must place to their judicial conscience, for it is they who have held the destruction of the mosque an illegal act.
P. Datta,
Kolkata
It is easy to pore over the verdict with a critical lens and indict it by applying the yardstick of lofty abstractions (Editorial page, “A reward for ‘egregious' violations’,” Nov. 11 ). By making it appear as favouring one party over the other, the article seems to have ignored the enormity of the judicial task of trying to adjudicate on a faith-based dispute which the nation’s political class, cultural elites and the society at large failed to resolve out of court. How would the Supreme Court’s critics have reacted if the mediation process had thrown up a similar arrangement with the approval of all parties? Would they have accepted the compromise solution or damned it and dragged it to the Supreme Court? Given a chance, the Supreme Court would prefer to stay away from pronouncing on matters of faith. Having forsaken the spirit of compromise as a guiding force to settle faith-related disputes, the society cannot expect the judiciary to come up with miraculous solutions. It serves nobody’s interest to continue to stoke the flames of bitterness in a conflict-weary society.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
