Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, a retired Supreme Court judge, on Saturday said the Ayodhya judgment had created a doubt in his mind and that he was “very disturbed”.

"As a student of the Constitution, it is a little difficult for me to accept it," he says

“Even if not in 1856-57, but definitely since 1949, namaz was offered there, that is in evidence. So, when our Constitution came into being, namaz was being offered there. A place where namaz is offered, if that place is recognised as a masjid, then the minority community has the right to defend its freedom of religion — a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution,” he said.

Show thread

“Then what does a Muslim see today? That there stood a mosque, for so many years, which has been demolished. Now the court is allowing a building to come up on that site, on an alleged finding that the land belonged to Ram Lalla. Will the Supreme Court decide on land ownership from centuries ago? Will the Supreme Court forget that there was a masjid there for so long, which was there when the Constitution arrived?”

Show thread

The former SC judge added: “What was there before the Constitution was adopted is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court. There was no democratic republic of India.Then where a masjid was, where a mandir was, where a Buddhist stupa was, where a church was…"

Show thread

"if we sit down to make such judgments, a lot of temples and mosques and other structures will have to be demolished. We cannot go into mythological ‘facts’. Who is Ram? Is there any historically proved situation? It’s a matter of belief and faith.”

He further added.

Show thread

He went on: “The Supreme Court said this time that on the basis of faith, you cannot get any priority. They are saying that under the mosque, there were structures. But the structure was not a temple. And nobody can say that the mosque was built by demolishing a temple. Now by demolishing a mosque, a temple is being built?

Show thread

Asked what he would consider a fair decision, Justice Ganguly said: “Either of the two. Either I would have directed the mosque to be rebuilt in that area. Or if it is disputed, that area, then I would have said ‘No mosque, no temple in that area’

Show thread

@jamewils @AKanisetti

Could someone be kind enough to explain something to a foreigner far away from India?
I read about the Ayodha judgment that it gave the land to "Ram"?
OK, as a computer geek I'am always in favor of having more Ram, but in all seriousness did an official court decision accept an unseen and unheard deity to be a party to it?
How can that be? I was under the impression than India's legal system was inherited from the British?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon 🐘

Discover & explore Mastodon with no ads and no surveillance. Publish anything you want on Mastodon: links, pictures, text, audio & video.

All on a platform that is community-owned and ad-free.