There was not a Hindu Temple Underneath the Babri Masjid
Retired supreme court Justice RF Nariman had serious reservations with the supreme Court's treatment of secularism in rulings pertaining to the babri masjid issue during a critical speech at the First Justice AM Ahmadi Memorial Lecture on "Secularism and the indian Constitution,"
He called the 2019 ruling that gave Hindus permission to build a temple on the contested location a "travesty of justice" that compromised the secular values inherent in the indian Constitution.
In his reflection on the Babri Masjid's history, Justice Nariman emphadata-sized how the supreme Court's rulings throughout the years have fallen short of upholding secularism. He saw that political and religious majoritarianism overshadowed secularism, which was a fundamental component of the Constitution.
The Repercussions of the Demolition of the Babri mosque
The government's response to the december 6, 1992, demolition of the Babri mosque was reviewed by Justice Nariman. The Liberhan Commission's creation was deemed insufficient, and it took 17 years for it to present its conclusions in 2009. The ayodhya Acquisition of Areas Act's passing and the Presidential referral to ascertain whether a Hindu temple was located beneath the mosque were also emphadata-sized by him; he called the latter action "mischievous."
The retired judge examined the famous 1994 case of Ismail Faruqui v. Union of india, in which the supreme court affirmed the ayodhya Act but issued a contentious decision to preserve the status quo. This decision ignored the law's secular ramifications while permitting Hindu worshippers to pray inside the contested building. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Ahmadi claimed that the Act went against secularism.
Evaluation of the ram Janmabhoomi Verdict for 2019
Even though Justice Nariman acknowledged that the 1992 demolition of the babri masjid was unlawful, he harshly condemned the 2019 supreme court decision that gave the contested site in ayodhya to Hindus for the construction of a temple. He drew attention to the inconsistencies in the Court's logic, namely its claim that Muslims did not own the site exclusively, despite historical proof demonstrating that they had been using it for prayer up until 1949.
Nariman went into further detail on the historical developments.
Constructed in 1528, the babri masjid remained a mosque until 1853, when tensions broke out.
In 1857, a wall separating the inner and outer courtyards was constructed by the british government.
Hindus worshiped in the outside courtyard, while Muslims continued to pray in the inside courtyard.
Muslim prayers were discontinued in 1949 as a result of the unlawful placement of idols within the mosque.
The 2003 Archaeological survey of india (ASI) study, which discovered relics from several religious groups but found no proof of a ram temple beneath the mosque, was also questioned by him. The court determined that the site belonged to Hindus in spite of these facts.
"This was a great travesty of justice," said Nariman. "The Hindu side was always the one that disregarded the law. However, restitution may only be used to provide
He called the 2019 ruling that gave Hindus permission to build a temple on the contested location a "travesty of justice" that compromised the secular values inherent in the indian Constitution.
In his reflection on the Babri Masjid's history, Justice Nariman emphadata-sized how the supreme Court's rulings throughout the years have fallen short of upholding secularism. He saw that political and religious majoritarianism overshadowed secularism, which was a fundamental component of the Constitution.
The Repercussions of the Demolition of the Babri mosque
The government's response to the december 6, 1992, demolition of the Babri mosque was reviewed by Justice Nariman. The Liberhan Commission's creation was deemed insufficient, and it took 17 years for it to present its conclusions in 2009. The ayodhya Acquisition of Areas Act's passing and the Presidential referral to ascertain whether a Hindu temple was located beneath the mosque were also emphadata-sized by him; he called the latter action "mischievous."
The retired judge examined the famous 1994 case of Ismail Faruqui v. Union of india, in which the supreme court affirmed the ayodhya Act but issued a contentious decision to preserve the status quo. This decision ignored the law's secular ramifications while permitting Hindu worshippers to pray inside the contested building. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Ahmadi claimed that the Act went against secularism.
Evaluation of the ram Janmabhoomi Verdict for 2019
Even though Justice Nariman acknowledged that the 1992 demolition of the babri masjid was unlawful, he harshly condemned the 2019 supreme court decision that gave the contested site in ayodhya to Hindus for the construction of a temple. He drew attention to the inconsistencies in the Court's logic, namely its claim that Muslims did not own the site exclusively, despite historical proof demonstrating that they had been using it for prayer up until 1949.
Nariman went into further detail on the historical developments.
Constructed in 1528, the babri masjid remained a mosque until 1853, when tensions broke out.
In 1857, a wall separating the inner and outer courtyards was constructed by the british government.
Hindus worshiped in the outside courtyard, while Muslims continued to pray in the inside courtyard.
Muslim prayers were discontinued in 1949 as a result of the unlawful placement of idols within the mosque.
The 2003 Archaeological survey of india (ASI) study, which discovered relics from several religious groups but found no proof of a ram temple beneath the mosque, was also questioned by him. The court determined that the site belonged to Hindus in spite of these facts.
"This was a great travesty of justice," said Nariman. "The Hindu side was always the one that disregarded the law. However, restitution may only be used to provide