Gulte Telugu news
SC judgements become controversial
The judiciary is considered the third pillar in a democracy, with the other two being legislative and executive. The principal role of the judiciary is to protect the rule of law and ensure supremacy of law. In a democracy, judiciary is given a final say while settling disputes between individuals, organisations or individuals and the government.
However, in the recent past, the verdicts pronounced by the Supreme Court in connection with cases involving the Muslim community, drew much criticism from various sections of the society. The opposition parties felt that justice was not being delivered to the Indian Muslims. The secularists faulted the courts for having become Hindu courts.
Now, let us take a look into the apex court judgements that came under the scanner.
Ayodhya Land Dispute (Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi property dispute)
The case is a title dispute over 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. It is a political, historical and socio-religious debate going on for decades in the country. Believing that the area is the birthplace of Hindu deity Lord Rama, in December 1992, a mob of Hindutva supporters demolished a 16th century mosque on the site, claimed to be built by Mir Baqi in 1528 following orders of the first Mughal emperor Babur. The demolition triggered communal riots across India, in which at least 2,000 people died.
The demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque stand as a topic of controversy. Some say in 1949, they saw an idol of Rama being placed inside what was then a mosque. Both Hindu and Muslim religious leaders claim ownership of the site which led to an eventual lockdown of the area by the government.
The legal battle itself, however, dates back to the 19th century. The suits which the Supreme Court heard in the last couple of years can be traced to district court proceedings in 1950.
On December 17, 1959, Nirmohi Akhara, a group of Hindu ascetics, filed a suit seeking possession of the site and claimed to be the custodians of the disputed land. Following this, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf also filed a suit claiming ownership of the site on December 18, 1961.
Over the years, the matter has been raised by both the groups in various courts of the country.
On September 30, 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the land in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts among the Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara. The petitioners moved the Supreme Court and the apex court stayed the HC verdict.
In 2016, the court started a fresh hearing of the case. In 2017, the SC said that the matter was sensitive and suggested that the case to be settled out of court. With no solution coming up, in 2018, the Supreme Court set up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the land dispute case.
Controversies galore
On November 9, 2019, a Supreme Court Bench unanimously ruled that the disputed land be given to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas for the construction of a temple, and the Muslim side be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent site in Ayodhya to build a mosque.
In February 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in the Lok Sabha that the government had given its approval to the proposal for “Shri Ramjanmabhoomi Tirtha Kshetra” trust to take care of the construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya and other related issues.
Six months later, he visited Ayodhya to lay the foundation stone (a 40 kg silver brick) for the construction of the Ram Mandir at the Ram Janmbhoomi site. Despite the shadow of coronavirus pandemic, the event was extravagant, with as many as 175 invitees.
The Ayodhya verdict is said to be full of contradictions. There is criticism that the court decided the matter on the basis of faith, not facts. The apex court believed that Lord Rama was born underneath the central dome of Babri Masjid.
While the Hindutva ideologues assumed that the Supreme Court upheld the claims of Lord Rama’s devotees and respected religious sentiments, the Muslims and secularists concluded that the court gave precedence to mythology over history.
Muslims and secularists considered the court had a leaning towards the BJP ideology, the party leaders, including PM Narendra Modi and other prominent leaders, made it appear that history has been redeemed and that the court had settled ‘humiliation of Hindus by the Muslim invaders’.
Some said the Supreme Court chose to bow down before the forces of majoritarian thuggery and extremism. Logic and law were conveniently set aside by the top court to appease a certain radical section of the society.
Babri Masjid demolition
A year after the SC delivered judgement over the Ayodhya land dispute, the CBI court in Lucknow acquitted all the 32 accused, including BJP veterans LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Kalyan Singh and Uma Bharati, in the Babri Masjid demolition case on September 30, 2020.
The judgment was delivered 28 years after the Mughal era mosque was razed to ground on December 6, 1992. Even this judgement faced criticism from secularists.
Obviously, the BJP leaders welcomed the judgement while the Opposition parties criticised the CBI for having allegedly diluted incriminating evidence against the accused in its charge sheet and termed the verdict as another blow to the secular fabric of India.
At the same time, Madhav Godbole, the home secretary when Babri Masjid was demolished, and Justice M.S. Liberhan, who led the commission of inquiry into the demolition, expressed their shock at the court’s decision. They felt that the verdict is completely contrary to the evidence that was gathered over the last two decades.
The main point of the acquittal is that the `demolition incident was not pre-planned’. When the mosque was demolished through a well planned procession, 16 Muslims were killed? If all the 32 accused were innocent then who was or were the culprits?
In November 2019, the Supreme Court described the demolition of the Babri Masjid an “egregious violation of the rule of law”. In 2017, the Supreme Court restored the conspiracy charges in the case and later set a strict deadline for the trial to be completed.
The demolition of the Masjid had triggered communal riots across the country and it also led to bomb blasts in several parts of Mumbai, allegedly masterminded by underworld don Dawood Ibrahim, in 1993. The blasts killed over 300 people.
Civil conspiracy, says Liberhan
The Liberhan Commission which investigated into the demolition, in its report submitted in 2009, pointed to the involvement of senior RSS and BJP leaders, including L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, and connivance of the then Uttar Pradesh government.
Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan, the head of the Commission, maintained there was a “conspiracy” to pull down the mosque. He said that the Commission had examined over 100 witnesses, the leaders present on the dais, including L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi, and some newspaper clippings.
Justice Liberhan, however, refused to comment on the special CBI court’s September 30 judgement acquitting all 32 accused in the case.
Speaking to a couple of media houses, Justice Liberhan said that he stood by his report. He added, “I got no commentary to make on the trial court judgment. We are two separate identities. Our perception on the same facts may differ. But I stand by my report that said there was a ‘civil conspiracy’ to pull down the mosque.”
He even said that, “All of them, Advani, Vajpayee, appeared before me, and what I found, I presented in my report, but they can’t be a witness against themselves… Some of them took responsibility for the demolition. Uma Bharti categorically claimed responsibility… if the judge says she is not responsible, what can I do.”
The judgment became controversial as the CBI court held the demolition as spontaneous, for which no one except unknown anti-social elements must have been responsible.
The court did not accept the over 100 videotapes of the incident as the audio was not clear, but then most criminal trial convictions are made basing on the oral and documentary evidence. As many as 351 witnesses had testified and more than 800 documents were produced. Yet, the CBI failed to convince the judge.
Setback to CBI’s reputation
The acquittal of all the accused is a setback to the CBI’s reputation. With the Supreme Court itself calling the CBI a “caged parrot”, the investigating agency often gets criticised for shoddy probes or weak prosecution tactics.
The agency has a conviction rate of around 69% in its cases, but it is the high-profile cases where its work is often put to the real test. India’s criminal justice system cannot improve if prosecution and investigation functions are not bifurcated.
“From all the evidence produced before me, it was clear that the Babri Masjid demolition was meticulously planned… I remember Uma Bharti categorically took responsibility for it. It was not an unseen force that demolished the mosque, human beings did it,” Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan said after the verdict was pronounced.
Taking exception to the judgement, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi said: “This judgment satisfies the collective consciousness of hindutva and its followers and ideology.” He termed the CBI court ruling “obnoxious”.
He said that he would appeal to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to appeal to the Supreme Court against the CBI court verdict.
Triple Talaq Law
The Triple Talaq Bill, which faced much controversy, was introduced after the Supreme Court made Triple Talaq or instant Talaq or Talaq-e-biddat unconstitutional in the Shayara Bano Vs Union on India filed in 2016. Bano, woman from Uttarakhand approached the Supreme Court after her husband, Ahmed Rizwan, divorced her even though they were married for 15 years.
Shayara Bano filed a writ petition stating that Article 14, 15, 21 and 25 were being violated by the Triple Talaq privilege given to Muslim men. The AIMPLB was also made part of the case which argued that the SC cannot interfere into the Personal Laws. The apex court struck down the Talaq-e-biddat law saying it was violating a few Articles in the Constitution.
In 2017, the Modi government introduced the Triple Talaq Bill in the Parliament and it got passed in 2019 as Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 which criminalised Triple Talaq. Those committing the offence could be jailed for three years along with imposing a fine.
However, the opposition parties faulted the NDA government for criminalising a personal law while some others asked how could divorce be punished, and that how could one man give maintenance to his divorced wife, if he was arrested. Some other said the punishment was harsh and open to misuse. The Bill faced opposition in the Rajya Sabha as some MPs here called it unfair. Others have said the state has no place in regulating the marital home.
Gender Justice
Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the Triple Talaq Act was not violating even the Islamic rules. He defended the bill, saying the practice had not stopped despite it being banned. He told the Rajya Sabha that some 574 cases were reported after the Supreme Court verdict.
“The judgement has come but no action on Triple Talaq has been taken. That is why we have brought this law, because the law is a deterrence,” he said.
However, by passing the Bill, the Narendra Modi government which promised gender justice achieved its goal.
AIMIM MP Asaduddin Owaisi, said the new law was another attack on Muslim identity under the BJP, which has been in power since 2014.
Further, the Opposition leaders criticised induction of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi as a member of Rajya Sabha and termed it as quid pro quo for his ‘services’ to the Modi government. The judgement on Triple Talaq was delivered during Gogoi’s tenure by the Supreme Court.
