Ayodhya Verdict: What BJP, Congress And A Veteran Lawyer Had To Say
Here’s what Congress’ Kalappa, BJP’s Deodhar and Supreme Lawyer Sidharth Luthra had to say on the verdict.
The Supreme Court of India ended a 500-year old Ayodhya dispute by ruling in favour of the Hindu parties. The issue has been a political hot potato for years with the topic of building a temple for Lord Ram featuring in Bharatiya Janata Party’s manifesto for multiple central elections.
Here’s what Congress Spokesperson Brijesh Kalappa, BJP’s National Secretary Sunil Deodhar and Supreme Court Lawyer Sidharth Luthra had to say on the verdict.
It’s A Mechanism Under Constitution
The five-judge apex court panel has chosen to devolve a mechanism under Article 142 of Constitution of India to hand over its ownership to Ramjanmabhoomi Trust while acknowledging the sensitivities involved, said Luthra.
Court has acknowledged the rights of both parties and act of demolition was bad. Keeping in view the sensitivities involved, as restitution, the court has given alternative land of five acres in lieu of rights of the Muslim parties involved.Sidharth Luthra, Lawyer, Supreme Court
However, an aggrieved party has the right to file a review petition or has an option for filing a curative petition under the court of law, he said.
Justice System Is The Real Winner At The End Of The Day: Kalappa
Brijesh Kalappa said the judgment is final and no one can surpass it. “This has been pending for many years and the had to be some finality to the entire process.”
“It’s not either one party or other that feels it has succeeded, it’s the ultimately justice system that has succeeded.”
When asked why the Congress party has remained cautious on the matter and not provided a counter-narrative to the BJP, Kalappa said the relief was done in the best interests of integrating the country and wasn’t against any party.
BJP Will Not Interfere In Formation Of The Trust
BJP doesn’t have a say in forming a trust and it’s the central government’s job to undertake that work within three months and finalise the issues, the party’s National Secretary Sunil Deodhar said.
We shouldn’t see it as victory or defeat. In fact, it’s an opportunity to strengthen the thread of diversity present in the country that binds us together and show the world. The central government will work towards the development of every part of the society.Sunil Deodhar, National Secretary, Bharatiya Janata Party
Read the edited transcript here:
How do you interpret this extremely complex judgment?
Luthra: Let me first clarify, it’s not that the court has ruled for one party or the other. The court has acknowledged the rights of both the parties. The court has then said the demolition was bad. In terms of moulding the relief and that’s an important part, the court has acknowledged the use of inner courtyard by one party and the outer one by other party and the court has then said that keeping with the sensitivities involved therefore, in the lieu of the rights of the Muslim party we are giving them a restitution— alternative land of five acres.
So please let’s be very clear in what we say, the judgment is very clear. The rights of the parties of worship, the rights of the parties to the use of the premise till 1949 and thereafter and the fact of demolition all has been acknowledged by the court on one hand and on another the worship in the outer courtyard by the Hindu party is also been recognized and that’s very important to understand. This judgment is purely based on the understanding and interpretation of the evidence. However, while giving the final relief the court has chosen to devolve a mechanism which it can do under the Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
What is your first impression of the judgment?
Kalappa: As far as Article 142 of the Constitution is concerned as Luthra just pointed out, Article 142 of the constitution is meant to do complete justice in a matter. As far as Supreme Court is concerned, the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of all disputes regard to all issues in the country and their judgment is absolutely final and there is nobody who can surpass their judgment in terms of analysis. So, from that point of view this is an issue which has been pending from many years.
I think, there has to be a finality to the entire process and whether one party feels if they have succeeded or another party feels that they have been succeeded, ultimately, I think the justice system is succeeded and we all should accept this judgment with unanimity, with equanimity and I think, it is very essential that we must send out a message to the country and to the world as far as this judgment is concerned they puts an end to rather painful chapter of our history and from here on we move ahead.
Now you think that the matter gets closure and there are no pending issues and no parties would raise any issue or you anticipate that there could be, some people may think and go for some kind of review of this judgment?
Kalappa: No, I think, Luthra will know better than me that 99 percent of all review cases are dismissed at the outset. So, there’s absolutely no point of filing a review and I don’t think anything will come of it. What is passed today, I think brings to finality what is being going on since 1949 and I think from now on we should move ahead into the 21st century with our head held high that these issues which are mediaeval issues have finally been resolved thanks to the verdict from the Supreme Court and therefore we are moving ahead from now.
Can you please explain this a little bit more for our audiences, explain in layman terms as this is the final judgment and review is quite difficult or the kind of reaction which has been seen that most of the parties are welcoming the judgment but there are some parties who have some reservation like Muslim Personal Law Board or Owaisi?
Luthra: See, Supreme court judgment is the final judgment as Kalappa rightly pointed out and it’s the responsibility of every citizen to accept the final verdict. Second, I would also like to say that Kalappa also added that reviews are dismissed most of the time which is absolutely right. However, what needs to be stated is that the right to file a review thereafter the right to file what is called a curative petition exist with the parties, now it’s up to the other parties whether they all will accept the verdict.
There are two parts to the verdict as I said the first part is the substantive part which is an understanding and interpretation of the evidence and that is the first part which is very important because there are some very crucial legal issues that have been decided both in terms of the understanding of the evidence and also legal issues that has been determined and finally closed. The second part is the grant of relief that is after acknowledging the various rights of the parties the Muslim parties as a restitution that is in alternative in their existing rights they have been directed to be given five acres of land at an alternative site and that is to maintain the harmony which the court can do under Article 142 and that is something which has to be seen whether parties are concerned will accept it or they wish to file a review.
Having said that, I think, I totally agree with Kalappa that it was a longstanding issue and it should have been determined a long time ago and it is a tragedy that from 1949 this has been a simmering issue. 1949, 1986, 1992 and thereafter this finally reached a conclusion and we have ended the chapter in our country’s life. And it is time now to move on and to start focusing on issues which matter to ordinary Indians and that is more important at this time for us to live in peace and remember we are one nation, one people. We have different views, different colours, different caste, different religion but eventually we’re one nation and we should move ahead and make this a great nation.
As you said, the verdict has been given keeping justice and law in mind and relief has been provided but on broader terms what we used to get this is as a case of land dispute, dispute in ownership of land versus strong beliefs held by people. So, the operative part of the order, on which part either the operative or the legal part of the order is judgment based on? And what could be the implications of the law which has been settled now?
Luthra: See, my belief is that this was a one-off kind of a case and it has been decided. The decision is there. So, there are many implications here on. Firstly, those who were that this is not a mosque, it said there was a mosque. The rituals which were practiced everything is legally viewed and based on the evidence. One needs to understand that this was not a writ petition. This was an accusation from civil suit and when such a case based on civil suit is filed it is decided based on the statements instead of the oral arguments. Whatever the statements and evidences are gathered on the basis of that it is decided and then court pronounce verdict based on the same. This was a good move as the decision came unanimous, there is no dissent of Supreme Court but as I said we need to understand two things one is the legal side based on evidences that I think, has been very well put out, keeping each word in mind.
I haven’t read the judgment in detail but considering the relief part as you rightly pointed out, Muslim Personal Law Board is reserved over the decision. And as far as why they got an alternative land is just based on para 795 of the judgment or 796, it is written that considering their rights we are providing them restitution and thus they will be given an alternative land where they can build mosque or anything.
One needs to understand that this was not a writ petition. This was an accusation from civil suit and when such a case based on civil suit is filed it is decided based on the statements instead of the oral arguments. Whatever the statements and evidences are gathered on the basis of that it is decided and then court pronounce verdict based on the same. This was a good move as the decision came unanimous.
So, places like Kashi, Mathura and other such places of worship, will there be any such issues raised by BJP on the basis of beliefs? is this a complete closure and we will hear some new narrative from your party? Will there be new demands?
Deodhar: There are no such issues in front of BJP now, we just have Bharat Mata in front of us, 130 Indians and their progress this all is in front of us. This is the only aim we have, Narendra Modi-led Centre have and that’s why sabka saath, sabka vikas with this only aim keeping in mind BJP will move on.
As per the judgment, there has to be the formation of a trust within three months and that will include representatives from several parties, including Nirmohi Akhara, and construction of temple will begin. What will be the planning of Centre and BJP for this?
Deodhar: There is no question of the party here, it’s the matter of Centre. Supreme Court has ordered central government to establish a trust and within three months investigate about the construction. Central Government will think about this and then will take decision on this.
Several prominent ministers from your party, including Prime Minister Modi, has said that don’t take this judgment as win or loss of any party involved and whatever the verdict is, it should be accepted and respected. But these questions of beliefs and faith has been raised by BJP since very long. Will this balanced narrative continue?
Deodhar: As PM Modi said that whatever you name it, either in the faith of Ram or Rahim but hereafter there should be only one faith which is for the nation, society. Very peacefully we accepted this verdict instead of perceiving it as a victory or loss of any party. This is the right time to witness the fabric, unity in our country and how strong it is. We should let world know about our unity and we are not divided. As I said, the whole 2019 election campaign of BJP, our agenda was not based on any emotional or manipulative basis, our agenda was only development of the country and during in our governance during those five years we have always delivered development. It is obvious that it comprises of nationalism and there is also no compromise in the same but hereon we will move towards development with everybody.
This has been our way since very long and it will continue further as well. We will gain everybody’s confidence, their trust, we will move along with whole society. Keeping this in mind central government will work and this will be the belief of the party as well. Whatever policy we made or whatever laws are made we want that to across country. The parts of country where we are not ruling, if there is any corruption, we will bring that to public’s eye. Like I am in Andhra Pradesh right now, but I am doing my work. Whatever is right I say it and whatever is wrong is wrong. So, I don’t think party will move onward with any such emotional narrative.
The current scenario in Maharashtra—there is a clash between BJP and Shiv Sena. Will that be solved after this?
Deodhar: It’s true that I belong to Maharashtra, but I was never involved in politics there. I have been allotted Andhra Pradesh now, so I will focus there. I have no clue about Maharashtra.
Supreme Court also ruled that Babri Masjid was demolished violating the rules the court and law. Is it justice to restitute alternative land to them for the construction fair?
Kalappa: How can I tell you that? If Supreme Court has ruled the decision then it’s the only justice because it’s the apex court and we have to accept that. Here, you and I, what we have to say doesn’t matter. We should let justice prevail according to Supreme Court and we therefore should leave that to them. And we should accept the verdict.
Congress as an opposition has been weak in presenting their narrative, is it because the current scenario?
Kalappa: No, this is absolutely not the case. This is for welfare of the country, so we are not getting into BJP versus Congress narrative here.
No, but what will Congress say in counter narrative hereafter?
Kalappa: First it is necessary to read the judgment and then decide.