In his view, these judgements marked a “great travesty of justice” as they failed to give due importance to secularism—a foundational principle of the Indian Constitution.
The Demolition of Babri Masjid and Its Aftermath
On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was illegally demolished, sparking widespread communal unrest. Justice Nariman reflected on the Indian Government's response, including the establishment of the Liberhan Commission, which took an astounding 17 years to deliver its report.
Furthermore, the government enacted the Ayodhya Acquisition of Areas Act, 1993, and issued a Presidential Reference asking the Supreme Court whether a Hindu temple existed beneath the mosque. Justice Nariman termed this reference "mischievous," critiquing its divisive implications.
Babri Masjid demolition, Ayodhya dispute, Liberhan Commission report.
Early Judgements and Secularism
Justice Nariman delved into the 1994 judgement in the Ismail Faruqui case, which examined the constitutional validity of the Ayodhya Acquisition Act. The Court upheld the Act with a 3:2 majority but controversially allowed Hindu prayers to continue at the disputed site. Justice AM Ahmadi, in the minority, highlighted that this provision undermined secularism.
Nariman stressed that this decision set the stage for sidelining the principle of secularism in subsequent rulings. Allowing religious practices at a disputed site, he argued, was antithetical to the Constitution’s commitment to equality and neutrality in matters of faith.
Ismail Faruqui judgement, secularism in Indian judiciary, Ayodhya Acquisition Act.
The 2019 Ayodhya Verdict: A Mixed Legacy
The 2019 Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute marked the conclusion of decades of legal wrangling. The unanimous decision handed over the entire disputed land to a trust for constructing the Ram Mandir, while allocating an alternate plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for a mosque.
Justice Nariman criticised this ruling, pointing out its inherent contradictions. While the Court acknowledged the 1992 mosque demolition as an “egregious violation of the law,” it still granted the land to the Hindu side. He questioned the logic behind denying Muslims exclusive possession despite evidence of uninterrupted prayers from 1857 to 1949, when idols were controversially installed inside the mosque.
2019 Ayodhya verdict, Ram Mandir construction, Babri Masjid demolition.
Archeological Findings and Legal Reasoning
Referring to the 2003 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, Justice Nariman highlighted its findings, which included artefacts from Shaivaite, Buddhist, and Jain traditions. Crucially, the report stated there was no evidence of a Ram Temple beneath the Babri Masjid. Despite this, the Court deemed the land a “composite whole” belonging to Hindus.
Nariman criticised the Supreme Court for overlooking the Hindu side’s repeated violations of the rule of law, including the forcible installation of idols in 1949 and the 1992 demolition. He argued that genuine reparations should have involved rebuilding the mosque, rather than merely allocating alternative land.
ASI Babri Masjid findings, Supreme Court Babri Masjid ruling, archeological evidence Ayodhya dispute.
Secularism Undermined
In Justice Nariman’s words, the Babri Masjid judgements reflect a pattern of decisions that sideline secularism in favour of majoritarianism. He lamented that such rulings risk eroding the constitutional principle of tolerance.
He also expressed concern about the rise of legal challenges targeting Muslim religious sites, warning that these could fuel communal disharmony. Nariman urged courts to uphold the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which seeks to maintain the religious status quo as it stood on 15th August 1947.
secularism in India, Places of Worship Act 1991, communal harmony legal challenges.
Silver Lining in the Ayodhya Judgement
Despite his criticisms, Justice Nariman noted a "silver lining" in the 2019 Ayodhya judgement, as it upheld the Places of Worship Act. He stressed the need for district and High Courts to strictly adhere to the Act, which prohibits altering the status of places of worship to prevent sectarian strife.
Nariman emphasised that the judiciary must act decisively to curb the growing trend of suits targeting mosques and dargahs, invoking the Ayodhya judgement’s five-page section on the Places of Worship Act as a guiding principle.
Ayodhya judgement silver lining, protection of places of worship, judiciary communal harmony.
Justice Nariman’s Call for Constitutional Tolerance
Concluding his lecture, Justice Nariman invoked the wisdom of Justice Chinnapa Reddy from the Biju Emmanuel v. State of Kerala case, highlighting India’s long-standing tradition of constitutional tolerance. He urged all stakeholders to resist diluting the nation’s commitment to secularism, warning that failing to do so could deepen communal divides.
His poignant reminder that “our philosophy preaches tolerance, our Constitution practices tolerance” underscores the urgent need for secularism to reclaim its rightful place in Indian governance and jurisprudence.
ustice Nariman on secularism, constitutional tolerance India, judiciary and tolerance.
Justice RF Nariman’s critique of the Babri Masjid dispute rulings sheds light on the judiciary's struggles to balance secularism and majoritarian demands. By questioning the reasoning behind key decisions and advocating for the robust implementation of the Places of Worship Act, his lecture serves as a clarion call to uphold constitutional values amidst growing communal tensions.
The legacy of the Babri Masjid judgements continues to shape India’s socio-political landscape. As Justice Nariman warns, the path forward must be guided by the principles of secularism, tolerance, and rule of law—values enshrined in the Constitution but too often forgotten.
Babri Masjid dispute legacy, Indian judiciary secularism, constitutional values in India.
Comments
Post a Comment