New Delhi:
The Allahabad High Court's Ayodhya verdict has been criticised by some legal experts for confusing faith with points of law.
(Read: Ayodhya verdict: Land to be divided 3 ways, says Allahabad High Court)Speaking extensively on the implications of the verdict, Leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, BJP's Arun Jaitley, said it was his understanding that the court had not ruled on the "fact" of a specific place being the birthplace of Lord Ram, but had based its ruling on the perception of millions of believers.
(Read Judgement)When asked whether the party also welcomed the court's order that one third of the disputed site be handed over to the Sunni Waqf Board for the building of a mosque on the premises, Arun Jaitley refused to comment, saying the party had not evolved a position yet to this aspect of the judgement.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday pronounced its judgment in the Ayodhya title suit, saying Hindus and Muslims are joint title holders.
The three-judge bench - comprising Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma - ruled in a majority judgment 2:1, that there be a three-way division of the disputed land - one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for 'Ram Lalla'. Each of the three judges gave a summary of his own.
Here is what Arun Jaitley told NDTV after the verdict:
NDTV: Very sharp criticism that has come from some legal commentators is the fact that there is a dangerous precedent being set of mixing up very specific matters of faith and making them sound like points of law. For example the exact birth place of Lord Ram. Now it is one thing to argue that many Hindus believe that this particular place is the birth of Lord Ram, and quite another for the court to have an almost evidentiary scientific approach to it. Don't you think as a lawyer that that sets a dangerous precedent?
Jaitley: Well I have two preliminary points and then the substantive answer to what you are asking. First of all - Who are these experts? Till 4 pm in various channels, including yours, I saw these experts saying 'Oh there is going to be a judgement of the court and the judgement must be respected.'
From 4:15 when they realised that the judgement has not gone probably the way they wanted it to be, they turned into bitter critics of this judgement. The kind of language...the kind of comments which have been made including by people like a former Chief Justice etc is the least that I expected. How can there be constitutionalism being used only as a convenience by these people?
The second point- these comments have come from people who have not read the judgement. Neither have I, nor have you. We have only seen the preliminary reports or a brief synopsis. Let me tell you there were specific issues in the civil suit and this is a civil litigation in which issues are framed. The issues were - Is this place perceived to be the birth place of Lord Ram by the Hindus? Is it perceived to be the
janam sthan? Once this is an issue, people lead evidence on that issue. And when they lead evidence on that issue, you argue that issue. The judges will pronounce on that issue. Now it is very easy to say without reading the judgement 'Oh why did you say so.' As I understand, it is a judgement on what is perceived. Now whether Lord Ram was born here or not born here, I don't know. I have not read the judgement. But the fact the existence of such a perception is a matter of fact which a court could legitimately after framing an issue base its judgement on.
NDTV: The judgement also talks about giving 1/3rd of the land going to the Sunni Waqf Board. May be allowing them to build a mosque, if they should so want. And while the BJP spoke a lot about a grand
mandir, they were absolutely silent on the prospect of a mosque coming up adjacent to this
mandir. What is your party's position on that?
Jaitley: Well we don't have to speak on all issues at the same time. The BJP is not the principal party as far as the suit is concerned. We have only supported the Ram Janambhumi Andolan, which was launched by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the others. Now it is for all the contesting parties to litigate or work out a solution. Now a solution will be ideal. But if this judgement lays down a foundation in that direction, what eventually happens, whether the Waqf Board accepts it or does not accept it or they are going to challenge, we are not going to speak to them. Since we had in our Palampur resolution of 1989 taken a specific position with regard to the construction of the temple at the
Garb Grah, the movement that this judgement generates is in that direction; to that extent we have called it a positive step.