Hello everyone,
Here is the latest topic for this week's GD contest!Being the hottest topic I hope the discussion will also be too hot.
Ayodhya Verdict - Right or Wrong ?
As usual the winner will be awarded a cash prize of Rs. 50 and the Runner-up Rs. 25 along with 50 points each.
All participants who post at least three valid replies will be awarded 50 points in the Group Discussion. The Replies should be in a constructive manner either opposing or supporting the topic.
See link for more information and rules of the contest:
[url=www.boddunan.com/forums/3-contests-a-rew...test-group-discussio][/url]
20 Replies
Priya B wrote:
[quote]The Allahabad High Court in 2002 commissioned the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate part of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. For nearly six months, from March 12, 2003, to August 7, 2003, the country's best excavators worked on the premises - though under instructions to dig 10 feet "around" the spot under the central dome where the idol of Shri Ram Lala existed -- to verify claims about the presence of a previous structure, allegedly a Hindu temple.
The ASI report in 2003 concluded that there is "architectural evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure". The survey body said the remains of the "massive structure" pre-dating the construction of the mosque indicated "distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India".
The report factored in both Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma determining individually that a Hindu temple was "demolished" to construct a mosque.
Sudhir Agarwal the judge banks on the Hindu "belief", which has "lasted more than 200 years", pre-dating the British "Divide and Rule" policy. Justice Sharma holds that the report only "confirms" that the disputed site "was and is" the site of a temple believed by the Hindus to have been "always the birthplace of Lord Ram".[/quote]
The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.
[quote]The Allahabad High Court in 2002 commissioned the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate part of the disputed Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site. For nearly six months, from March 12, 2003, to August 7, 2003, the country's best excavators worked on the premises - though under instructions to dig 10 feet "around" the spot under the central dome where the idol of Shri Ram Lala existed -- to verify claims about the presence of a previous structure, allegedly a Hindu temple.
The ASI report in 2003 concluded that there is "architectural evidence of a massive structure just below the disputed structure and evidence of continuity in structural phases from the 10th century onwards up to the construction of the disputed structure". The survey body said the remains of the "massive structure" pre-dating the construction of the mosque indicated "distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India".
The report factored in both Justices Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sharma determining individually that a Hindu temple was "demolished" to construct a mosque.
Sudhir Agarwal the judge banks on the Hindu "belief", which has "lasted more than 200 years", pre-dating the British "Divide and Rule" policy. Justice Sharma holds that the report only "confirms" that the disputed site "was and is" the site of a temple believed by the Hindus to have been "always the birthplace of Lord Ram".[/quote]
The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.
I seriously doubt the Court reached its verdict based on the number of parties to the suit! Each of them had a valid legal claim over the property, which is why this decision was reached, not because the Court felt that all parties should have some consideration in the end.
The question of what the court would do if there were more parties is irrelavant, because there can be no other person having any claim over the property. One of the requirements in any case is that all people connected to any dispute have to be made parties to the suit. So the suit couldn't have progressed past the initial stage unless all interested persons were made parties to the suit.
Personally, I don't think it's possible for a judgment to be satisfying for ALL the parties concerned...
The question of what the court would do if there were more parties is irrelavant, because there can be no other person having any claim over the property. One of the requirements in any case is that all people connected to any dispute have to be made parties to the suit. So the suit couldn't have progressed past the initial stage unless all interested persons were made parties to the suit.
Personally, I don't think it's possible for a judgment to be satisfying for ALL the parties concerned...
[quote] Plain facts are that there was a mosque and not temple when demolished... [/quote]
Actually I think one of the judges claims that there is some doubt about whether what Babur constructed was actually a mosque... But we're really in no position to argue on that issue.
[quote] But the majority community believes that Ayodhya and the particular site is birth place of Rama. court had no option but to act in the way they did. But the land should have been distributed in two parts and not three.[/quote]
It's not really a case of the court having no option. The fact that most people believe that Ayodhya is the birth place of Ram plays a very important role, because law is, in essence, based on customary principles and belief. The court had to give this belief the due importance it deserves under law.
I'm curious as to why you claim that the land should have been distributed in two parts and not three?
Actually I think one of the judges claims that there is some doubt about whether what Babur constructed was actually a mosque... But we're really in no position to argue on that issue.
[quote] But the majority community believes that Ayodhya and the particular site is birth place of Rama. court had no option but to act in the way they did. But the land should have been distributed in two parts and not three.[/quote]
It's not really a case of the court having no option. The fact that most people believe that Ayodhya is the birth place of Ram plays a very important role, because law is, in essence, based on customary principles and belief. The court had to give this belief the due importance it deserves under law.
I'm curious as to why you claim that the land should have been distributed in two parts and not three?
gulshan kumar ajmani wrote:
[quote]
The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.[/quote]
The following are the inferences drawn by Justice Agarwal from the ASI report, 2003 (verbatim):
A. The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land.
B. There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute.
C. The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls, etc, without any further improvement.
D. The erstwhile structure was religious in nature, and that too non-Islamic.
E. Material like stone, pillars, bricks, etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure.
F. Artifacts recovered during excavation are mostly non-Islamic. Simultaneously, no artifacts etc which can be used only in Islamic religious place have been found.
The report of the expert agency, that is the ASI, clearly confirms existence of a Hindu religious structure dating back to thousands of years. This evidence too confirms that the disputed site was and is the site of a temple and the Hindus have always believed the same to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Hence it would not be possible to ignore the fact.
[quote]
The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.[/quote]
The following are the inferences drawn by Justice Agarwal from the ASI report, 2003 (verbatim):
A. The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land.
B. There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute.
C. The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls, etc, without any further improvement.
D. The erstwhile structure was religious in nature, and that too non-Islamic.
E. Material like stone, pillars, bricks, etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure.
F. Artifacts recovered during excavation are mostly non-Islamic. Simultaneously, no artifacts etc which can be used only in Islamic religious place have been found.
The report of the expert agency, that is the ASI, clearly confirms existence of a Hindu religious structure dating back to thousands of years. This evidence too confirms that the disputed site was and is the site of a temple and the Hindus have always believed the same to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Hence it would not be possible to ignore the fact.
Pallavi wrote:
[quote]I seriously doubt the Court reached its verdict based on the number of parties to the suit! Each of them had a valid legal claim over the property, which is why this decision was reached, not because the Court felt that all parties should have some consideration in the end.
The question of what the court would do if there were more parties is irrelavant, because there can be no other person having any claim over the property. One of the requirements in any case is that all people connected to any dispute have to be made parties to the suit. So the suit couldn't have progressed past the initial stage unless all interested persons were made parties to the suit.
Personally, I don't think it's possible for a judgment to be satisfying for ALL the parties concerned...[/quote]
This was not a family dispute requiring distribution of land between certain individuals. The number of parties to the case is not so relevant. Actually, this was a dispute about temple and mosque. So, the verdict could be- the entire structure is mosque, temple or both. It was rightly decided that both existed. It is improper to give verdict on action of Babar who cannot be subjected to current judicial system. Distribution of land on basis of number of litigants is improper. So, giving only one third to Muslims is unfair. It should be equal share.
[quote]I seriously doubt the Court reached its verdict based on the number of parties to the suit! Each of them had a valid legal claim over the property, which is why this decision was reached, not because the Court felt that all parties should have some consideration in the end.
The question of what the court would do if there were more parties is irrelavant, because there can be no other person having any claim over the property. One of the requirements in any case is that all people connected to any dispute have to be made parties to the suit. So the suit couldn't have progressed past the initial stage unless all interested persons were made parties to the suit.
Personally, I don't think it's possible for a judgment to be satisfying for ALL the parties concerned...[/quote]
This was not a family dispute requiring distribution of land between certain individuals. The number of parties to the case is not so relevant. Actually, this was a dispute about temple and mosque. So, the verdict could be- the entire structure is mosque, temple or both. It was rightly decided that both existed. It is improper to give verdict on action of Babar who cannot be subjected to current judicial system. Distribution of land on basis of number of litigants is improper. So, giving only one third to Muslims is unfair. It should be equal share.
The point I'm trying to make is that the distribution of land was NOT on the basis of the number of litigants. The judges have passed the verdict passed on who had a legitimate claim to the land. Since all parties did have some legitimate claim, they all had to be given some portion of the land. The claim of the Hindus happened to be stronger, so they got a larger portion of the land.
Like I said earlier, there can't be any more claimants.
But, hypothetically, if there was another claimant from the Muslim side he would most likely have been clubbed with the first Muslim claimant, and the end decision would have been the same. Unless he had a separate claim over the property, which he would then have to prove. If he was successful in proving the same, then the court's decision might have been different.
But, hypothetically, if there was another claimant from the Muslim side he would most likely have been clubbed with the first Muslim claimant, and the end decision would have been the same. Unless he had a separate claim over the property, which he would then have to prove. If he was successful in proving the same, then the court's decision might have been different.
Pallavi wrote:
[quote]The point I'm trying to make is that the distribution of land was NOT on the basis of the number of litigants. The judges have passed the verdict passed on who had a legitimate claim to the land. Since all parties did have some legitimate claim, they all had to be given some portion of the land. The claim of the Hindus happened to be stronger, so they got a larger portion of the land.[/quote]
Not Hindus but three parties (1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) (2) Nirmohi Akhada (3) Muslim organization have been given the parts. If Hindus were straight way given more part and Muslim less, this was understandable. But giving more to Hindus by recognizing two parties namely Ram lala Virajman and Nirmohi akhada is not understandable.
[quote]The point I'm trying to make is that the distribution of land was NOT on the basis of the number of litigants. The judges have passed the verdict passed on who had a legitimate claim to the land. Since all parties did have some legitimate claim, they all had to be given some portion of the land. The claim of the Hindus happened to be stronger, so they got a larger portion of the land.[/quote]
Not Hindus but three parties (1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) (2) Nirmohi Akhada (3) Muslim organization have been given the parts. If Hindus were straight way given more part and Muslim less, this was understandable. But giving more to Hindus by recognizing two parties namely Ram lala Virajman and Nirmohi akhada is not understandable.
Priya B wrote:
[quote]gulshan kumar ajmani wrote:
[quote]
The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.[/quote]
The following are the inferences drawn by Justice Agarwal from the ASI report, 2003 (verbatim):
A. The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land.
B. There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute.
C. The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls, etc, without any further improvement.
D. The erstwhile structure was religious in nature, and that too non-Islamic.
E. Material like stone, pillars, bricks, etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure.
F. Artifacts recovered during excavation are mostly non-Islamic. Simultaneously, no artifacts etc which can be used only in Islamic religious place have been found.
The report of the expert agency, that is the ASI, clearly confirms existence of a Hindu religious structure dating back to thousands of years. This evidence too confirms that the disputed site was and is the site of a temple and the Hindus have always believed the same to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Hence it would not be possible to ignore the fact.[/quote]
The ASI reports simply goes to prove that the Mosque was not built on plain land but by demolishing some other building- presumably Rama temple- and some material of the demolished building used in the temple. But all this carries no meaning. We cannot undo and nobody has the right to undo what happened thousands of years ago. Even national boundaries- not just a building- have changed in thousands of years. Thousands of years neither British law nor Indian constitution prevailed. Nobody can adjudge the action of Babar or any other ruler, who were not subject to present Indian law or British law. The placing of idols in mosque in 1949 and its demolition in 1992 by miscreants are criminal at according to Indian as well as British law. Thus, perfect and plain justice requires that entire land be given for Mosque. However, in order to pacify the Hindu sentiments, it may be okay to give some land for temple also. But this is unfair to give only one third for mosque.
[quote]gulshan kumar ajmani wrote:
[quote]
The babri Mosque was constructed at the same site where a temple or its remains existed according to survey as admitted by High court. The question is how the action of a ruler like Babar can be disputed. Babar was emperor and during his regime, he was law. what he did cannot be questioned by courts today. Even at the time of partition, there was only mosque and no temple. Some idols werwe stealthily placed in the site in 1949. In 1992, the mosque was unlawfully abolished.
Legally speaking, the disputed site is mosque. However, bringing the matter of faith in consideration and in overall interest of peace and tranquility, it is pragmatic that some portion of disputed sites be given to Hindu. To this extent, the judgment is fair. But giving only one third to Muslims and two third to Hindus is not palatable.[/quote]
The following are the inferences drawn by Justice Agarwal from the ASI report, 2003 (verbatim):
A. The disputed structure was not raised on a virgin, vacant, unoccupied, open land.
B. There existed a structure, if not much bigger then at least comparable or bigger than the disputed structure, at the site in dispute.
C. The builder of the disputed structure knew the details of the erstwhile structure and therefore did not hesitate in using the walls, etc, without any further improvement.
D. The erstwhile structure was religious in nature, and that too non-Islamic.
E. Material like stone, pillars, bricks, etc of the erstwhile structure was used in raising the disputed structure.
F. Artifacts recovered during excavation are mostly non-Islamic. Simultaneously, no artifacts etc which can be used only in Islamic religious place have been found.
The report of the expert agency, that is the ASI, clearly confirms existence of a Hindu religious structure dating back to thousands of years. This evidence too confirms that the disputed site was and is the site of a temple and the Hindus have always believed the same to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Hence it would not be possible to ignore the fact.[/quote]
The ASI reports simply goes to prove that the Mosque was not built on plain land but by demolishing some other building- presumably Rama temple- and some material of the demolished building used in the temple. But all this carries no meaning. We cannot undo and nobody has the right to undo what happened thousands of years ago. Even national boundaries- not just a building- have changed in thousands of years. Thousands of years neither British law nor Indian constitution prevailed. Nobody can adjudge the action of Babar or any other ruler, who were not subject to present Indian law or British law. The placing of idols in mosque in 1949 and its demolition in 1992 by miscreants are criminal at according to Indian as well as British law. Thus, perfect and plain justice requires that entire land be given for Mosque. However, in order to pacify the Hindu sentiments, it may be okay to give some land for temple also. But this is unfair to give only one third for mosque.
The judgement may look like to pacify a particular community but it was never proven that the land belonged to Babar or that he had unknowingly built the mosque. It is not possible to prove that he did it out of innocence. So the land once had a temple centuries ago which was later reduced to remains . But people still believed it as birth place of Ram. Hence it is justified in giving the faith its due.
Priya B wrote:
[quote]The judgement may look like to pacify a particular community but it was never proven that the land belonged to Babar or that he had unknowingly built the mosque. It is not possible to prove that he did it out of innocence. So the land once had a temple centuries ago which was later reduced to remains . But people still believed it as birth place of Ram. Hence it is justified in giving the faith its due.[/quote]
There is no need to prove that Babar owned land. He was neither subject to British law nor current constitution. He was an emperor and what he did is lawful. The mosque got built by Babar existed even on the date of independence of India. This is significant. Some idols were stealthily placed at the site. This is unlawful according to current law. The babri mosque was demolished in 1992. This is unlawful. So, justice lies in restoring the lawful position.
Although strictly implementing law will be to restore the Babri mosque, it is not feasible to annoy the majority community who have been fed on the belief that the disputed structure was a temple. Hence, it is okay to allocate some part for temple. But this is grossly unjust to give only one third of the disputed land to Muslims.
[quote]The judgement may look like to pacify a particular community but it was never proven that the land belonged to Babar or that he had unknowingly built the mosque. It is not possible to prove that he did it out of innocence. So the land once had a temple centuries ago which was later reduced to remains . But people still believed it as birth place of Ram. Hence it is justified in giving the faith its due.[/quote]
There is no need to prove that Babar owned land. He was neither subject to British law nor current constitution. He was an emperor and what he did is lawful. The mosque got built by Babar existed even on the date of independence of India. This is significant. Some idols were stealthily placed at the site. This is unlawful according to current law. The babri mosque was demolished in 1992. This is unlawful. So, justice lies in restoring the lawful position.
Although strictly implementing law will be to restore the Babri mosque, it is not feasible to annoy the majority community who have been fed on the belief that the disputed structure was a temple. Hence, it is okay to allocate some part for temple. But this is grossly unjust to give only one third of the disputed land to Muslims.
I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.
[quote](1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) [/quote]
If I'm not mistaken this actually meant that Bhagwan Ram was a party to the suit, that was being filed on his behalf by his 'next friend'. There was a lot of discussion about this. The end result was that the court declared that even deities can be parties to a suit. Quite an interesting decision on their part, and one that is bound to have repercussions!
[quote](1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) [/quote]
If I'm not mistaken this actually meant that Bhagwan Ram was a party to the suit, that was being filed on his behalf by his 'next friend'. There was a lot of discussion about this. The end result was that the court declared that even deities can be parties to a suit. Quite an interesting decision on their part, and one that is bound to have repercussions!
Pallavi wrote:
[quote]I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.
[/quote]
I think when the case was filed it was between two communities represented by two organisations.At that time it was not expected to prolong this much.So no more claimants added from either side.
[quote]I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.
[/quote]
I think when the case was filed it was between two communities represented by two organisations.At that time it was not expected to prolong this much.So no more claimants added from either side.
The judgement has helped in reducing the tense situation and avoiding any kind of clashes by the anti social elements who try to use people for their political games. So we should appreciate and applaud the verdict which had avoided another clash. None of the parties have won or lost the case. This has caused neither elation nor worry for the litigants. So the verdict was a balanced one
Pallavi wrote:
[quote]I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.
[quote](1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) [/quote]
If I'm not mistaken this actually meant that Bhagwan Ram was a party to the suit, that was being filed on his behalf by his 'next friend'. There was a lot of discussion about this. The end result was that the court declared that even deities can be parties to a suit. Quite an interesting decision on their part, and one that is bound to have repercussions![/quote]
Although under Indian law, artificial juridical persons are recognized, there are real persons behind. There is a sort of 'corporate veil' behind such artificial persons. So 'Ram Lala Virajman' means Hindu community. The persons supposedly representing 'Ram Lala Virajman' talk of Hindu sentiments and nothing else. Hence, virtually, this is a matter between two communities as no individuals/ families are contesting for their own interests.
We need to talk in plain and understandable terms. The facts are- Babar got constructed a mosque supposedly on remains of a Hindu temple. Babar's action can not be questioned in today's courts as he was not subject to current law and he was emperor and thus his word was law. Thus Babri Mosque was lawful. Some idols were unlawfully placed in the mosque in 1949 and the mosque unlawfully demolished in 1992. Strictly speaking, justice requires that entire land be used for construction of mosque so as to undo the offences of placing idols in 1949 and demolishing the building in 1992. However, this will enrage the majority community who are fed on the belief that the disputed site is a temple. So, it is okay to give some part for temple. However, giving only one third for mosque is not proper.
[quote]I think the mistake we're all making while having this discussion is thinking the parties to the suit are 'the Hindus' and 'the Muslims'. The Hindu community or Muslim community as a whole were not and cannot be parties to the suit. The people who are parties to the suit happen to be Hindus and Muslims, but are not representing themselves as the entire Hindu community or Muslim community.
[quote](1) Ram lala Virajman( I don't know what this means) [/quote]
If I'm not mistaken this actually meant that Bhagwan Ram was a party to the suit, that was being filed on his behalf by his 'next friend'. There was a lot of discussion about this. The end result was that the court declared that even deities can be parties to a suit. Quite an interesting decision on their part, and one that is bound to have repercussions![/quote]
Although under Indian law, artificial juridical persons are recognized, there are real persons behind. There is a sort of 'corporate veil' behind such artificial persons. So 'Ram Lala Virajman' means Hindu community. The persons supposedly representing 'Ram Lala Virajman' talk of Hindu sentiments and nothing else. Hence, virtually, this is a matter between two communities as no individuals/ families are contesting for their own interests.
We need to talk in plain and understandable terms. The facts are- Babar got constructed a mosque supposedly on remains of a Hindu temple. Babar's action can not be questioned in today's courts as he was not subject to current law and he was emperor and thus his word was law. Thus Babri Mosque was lawful. Some idols were unlawfully placed in the mosque in 1949 and the mosque unlawfully demolished in 1992. Strictly speaking, justice requires that entire land be used for construction of mosque so as to undo the offences of placing idols in 1949 and demolishing the building in 1992. However, this will enrage the majority community who are fed on the belief that the disputed site is a temple. So, it is okay to give some part for temple. However, giving only one third for mosque is not proper.
[quote]At that time it was not expected to prolong this much.So no more claimants added from either side.[/quote]
With our judicial system, there was no doubt that a judicial decision of this magnitude would not be delivered any time soon. It's one of the reasons people have such little faith in the judicial system.
Like I said earlier, no more claimants could have been added, because any one who has any kind of claim over the property has to be added for the suit to go past the initial stage. Otherwise it would be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.
With our judicial system, there was no doubt that a judicial decision of this magnitude would not be delivered any time soon. It's one of the reasons people have such little faith in the judicial system.
Like I said earlier, no more claimants could have been added, because any one who has any kind of claim over the property has to be added for the suit to go past the initial stage. Otherwise it would be dismissed for non-joinder of parties.
Topic Author
A
Abid Areacode
@Abid Areacode
Topic Stats
Created
Tuesday, 05 October 2010 13:59
Last Updated
Tuesday, 30 November -0001 00:00
Replies
0
Views
6.9K
Likes
0