The Supreme Court in the year 2019 concluded the long-standing controversy revolving around Ayodhya’s Ram Janmahoomi by delivering a verdict in favour of truth. The Court stated that the said land belonged to the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple Trust and that it had been the birthplace of Lord Ram for centuries. The court then also directed the Trust to build a temple on the land. The leftists and the so-called liberal section of the country later cried foul about the verdict for a long time claiming that the Supreme Court had allegedly delivered a biased judgment. 5 years after the verdict, the Ram temple today stands strong in Ayodhya attracting lakhs of Hindu devotees. But the criticism of the SC verdict delivered 5 years ago hasn’t stopped.
On Thursday, 6th December, former Supreme Court judge Justice Rohinton Nariman criticized the 5 judge bench that delivered the Ayodhya verdict 5 years ago and said that the verdict was nothing but a ‘mockery of justice’ that violated the basic principle of secularism. Justice Nariman delivered the inaugural lecture of the Ahmadi Foundation, which was established in remembrance of Justice Aziz Mushabber Ahmadi, the 26th Chief Justice of India (CJI). While delivering the lecture he said, “We find today, like hydra heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place. Now not only concerning mosques but also dargahs. All this can lead to communal tension and disharmony, contrary to what is envisaged in both our Constitution and the Places of Worship Act.”
Justice Nariman stated that the five-judge constitution bench that issued the ruling in 2019 further elaborated on the purpose of the Places of Worship Act. “This very Constitution Bench spends five pages on it and says that in secularism, which is a part of the Basic Structure, you cannot look backwards, you have to look forward… Every religious place of worship is frozen until 15th August 1947. Now, anybody who tries to change this, those suits will stand dismissed,” he added.
Nariman meanwhile also remarked that the entire issue surrounding the Ram Janmabhoomi began in the year 1984. He termed the karseva movement led by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad as the ‘dictatorial’ and ‘tyrannical’ demand to construct the temple. Further elaborating on his professional interactions with cases emerging from the Babri structure demolition in 1992, Nariman stated that in that year, two FIRs were filed, one against the karsevaks and the other against the political figures who allegedly encouraged the activities.
“Until it came to me, in 2017, when I was sitting with Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, nothing had taken place in these two FIRs for 25 years,” he claimed.
Nariman also accused the Hindu community of consistently acting against the law in the Ram Temple case. However, the historical record shows otherwise. The Hindu side has always adhered to legal avenues, fighting its case from the time of British judges to the District Court, the High Court, and eventually the Supreme Court. The Hindus have sought the temple’s rightful place within the framework of the law, even when their deity was constantly being dismissed and disrespected as ‘imaginary.’
If Hindus had truly acted outside the law, the Babri Masjid would not have stood until December 6th, 1992, nor would the temple consecration have been planned 3 decades later. Further, Nariman is also believed to have expressed disappointment over why a ‘mosque’ was not rebuilt on the same site after the Babri demolition.
Nariman described the failure to construct a mosque as a ‘travesty of justice,’ suggesting it would have served as appropriate compensation against the demolition of the claimed mosque. Amid this Nariman happened to overlook the fact that the real compensation lay in the construction of the Ram Temple. He seemed concerned about compensating for the demolition of a structure but showed little regard for addressing the centuries of injustice faced by Hindus.
Nariman criticized the SC verdict, claiming that ‘secularism’ was disregarded during the deliverance of the judgment. By his implication, it seems that secularism would only have been upheld if Hindus had abandoned their claim and remained silent.
He meanwhile also expressed frustration over the fact that the Mosques and Dargahs which have been built by demolishing the Hindu temples were being sent notices. He termed such petitions ‘hydra heads’ and claimed that such petitions could lead to increased communal tensions in the society.
Nariman, while concluding the lecture then called for the strict implementation of the 1991 law, which prevents Hindus from approaching the courts to address the historical vandalism of their religious sites. He argued that tolerance and communal harmony can only be achieved by enforcing a stringent law.
Rohinton Nariman’s displeasure with the Ram Temple decision can also be traced back to statements made by his father, Fali S. Nariman, one of the country’s most prominent lawyers. Fali S. Nariman had earlier expressed discomfort with the idea of a Hindu monk becoming the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Rohinton Nariman himself has made controversial remarks about the dignity of women in the Sanatan tradition, citing the Rigveda. It is crucial to wonder what the societal reaction would have been had he made a similar comment about women referring to texts from some other specific religion. That would have been a true test of tolerance then, isn’t it?
