by A.G. NOORANI
Babri Masjid which was demolished in 1992 PHOTO/SUBIR ROY
The record of court orders on the proposal for a temple where the Babri Masjid stood shows insidious attempts to sanctify the conversion of the mosque into a temple in 1949 and a flouting of a Supreme Court ruling that the rule of adverse possession applies in this case.
“IS it not perfectly clear that, if antiquated claims are to be set up against recent treaties and long possession, the world can never be at peace for a day? The laws of all nations have wisely established a time of limitation, after which titles, however illegitimate in their origin, cannot be questioned. It is felt by everybody, that to eject a person from his estate on the ground of some injustice committed in the time of the Tudors would produce all the evils which result from arbitrary confiscation, and would make all property insecure. It concerns the Commonwealth—so runs the legal maxim—that there be an end of litigation.” (From Lord Macaulay, Critical and Historical Essays, Longmans, Green & Co., 1877, page 666).”
Chief Justice of India Justice J.S. Kehar’s proposal on March 21, 2017 for mediation in the Babri Masjid case, as well as his remarks amplifying it are in glaring contrast to the Supreme Court’s sound reaction to the judgment of the Allahabad High Court’s majority judgments, on September 30, 2010, ordering a tripartition of the Babri Masjid between the idol of Ram Lalla in the central dome, the Nirmohi Akhara, and “one-third of the total area of the premises” to Muslims. It was made by Justices Sudhir Agarwal and Sibghatullah Khan. Justice Dharam Veer Sharma rejected the Muslim case in toto. All three, however, were agreed on one crucial point—the idol was planted in the mosque on the night of December 22-23, 1949, refuting the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh’s (RSS) lie that it appeared by a “miracle”.
Appeals against the High Court judgments came up for admission in the Supreme Court on May 9, 2011, before a Bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha, who did not conceal their displeasure. At the start of the proceeding, the judges pointedly asked if anyone was in favour of the High Court’s verdict. No one was—a fact which the court appreciated. It asked if any of the parties supported the judgments. No one did (DNA, May 10, 2011). All sought a stay of the judgments’ execution, which the court duly ordered.
Frontline for more