Ayodhya: Judges Differed On Several Issues
Lucknow, Oct 1 : The Allahabad High Court might have succeeded in resolving the legal dispute on Ramjanmabhoomi- Babri Masjid matter but they differed on many issues particularly on the the character of the building
Lucknow, Oct 1 : The Allahabad High Court might have succeeded in resolving the legal dispute on Ramjanmabhoomi- Babri Masjid matter but they differed on many issues particularly on the the character of the building that was demolished on December 6, 1992.
Two judges of the Bench declared the disputed structure which was demolished as a mosque, while the third judge said it cannot be called a mosque as it built was against the tenets of Islam.
While Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal were of the opinion that the disputed structure was a mosque, Justice D V Sharma ruled that it was built against the tenets of Islam and cannot have the character of a mosque.
Justice Khan held that the disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Mughal Emperor Babar.
'Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not even proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528," Justice Agarwal said adding that it was difficult to hold as to when and by whom the structure was constructed.
Justice Sharma was of the opinion that the disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam and hence it cannot have the character of a mosque.
The three-judge Bench yesterday gave their verdicts in the sixty-year-old legal Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute ruling by a 2-1 majority that disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts among Hindus and Muslims.
However, their unanimous view was that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Rama currently exists belonged to Hindus.
The judges also differed on the issue of whether a temple was demolished for the construction of the Babri mosque.
While Justice Khan said no temple was demolished and the mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples, Justices Agarwal and Sharma felt that a Hindu temple was demolished for building the mosque.
'No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque," Justice Khan said.
"The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure," Justice Sharma said.
"The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of non-Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple," Justice Agarwal held.
While Justices Agarwal and Sharma extensively relied on historical documents and accounts of many travellers who had visited India during the medieval period to substantiate their findings, Justice Khan admitted to not doing so contending that reliance on borderline historical facts would lead to erroneous conclusions.
"I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. Firstly, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits.
"Secondly, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded).
"Thirdly, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians," he said.
As the fourth reason, Justice Khan cited a Supreme Court verdict which held that as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims. PTI
Two judges of the Bench declared the disputed structure which was demolished as a mosque, while the third judge said it cannot be called a mosque as it built was against the tenets of Islam.
While Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal were of the opinion that the disputed structure was a mosque, Justice D V Sharma ruled that it was built against the tenets of Islam and cannot have the character of a mosque.
Justice Khan held that the disputed structure was constructed as mosque by or under orders of Mughal Emperor Babar.
'Disputed structure was always treated, considered and believed to be a mosque and practised by Mohammedans for worship accordingly. However, it has not even proved that it was built during the reign of Babar in 1528," Justice Agarwal said adding that it was difficult to hold as to when and by whom the structure was constructed.
Justice Sharma was of the opinion that the disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam and hence it cannot have the character of a mosque.
The three-judge Bench yesterday gave their verdicts in the sixty-year-old legal Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute ruling by a 2-1 majority that disputed land in Ayodhya be divided into three parts among Hindus and Muslims.
However, their unanimous view was that the place where the makeshift temple of Lord Rama currently exists belonged to Hindus.
The judges also differed on the issue of whether a temple was demolished for the construction of the Babri mosque.
While Justice Khan said no temple was demolished and the mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples, Justices Agarwal and Sharma felt that a Hindu temple was demolished for building the mosque.
'No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque," Justice Khan said.
"The disputed structure was constructed on the site of old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure," Justice Sharma said.
"The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of non-Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple," Justice Agarwal held.
While Justices Agarwal and Sharma extensively relied on historical documents and accounts of many travellers who had visited India during the medieval period to substantiate their findings, Justice Khan admitted to not doing so contending that reliance on borderline historical facts would lead to erroneous conclusions.
"I have not delved too deep in the history and the archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. Firstly, this exercise was not absolutely essential to decide these suits.
"Secondly, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded).
"Thirdly, having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians," he said.
As the fourth reason, Justice Khan cited a Supreme Court verdict which held that as far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims. PTI