 |
|
Former Supreme Court Justice R.F. Nariman's critique of the 2019 Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid judgment reverberates with serious concerns about the Indian legal system's commitment to secularism. His assertion that the verdict constitutes a 'great travesty of justice' demands a thorough examination of the judgment's implications and the broader context of religious freedom and communal harmony in India. The core of Justice Nariman's argument lies in the perceived inadequacy of the judgment in addressing the fundamental principle of secularism, a cornerstone of the Indian Constitution. He highlights the apparent contradiction between the court's acknowledgment of the illegal demolition of the Babri Masjid and its subsequent decision to grant the disputed land for the construction of a Ram temple. This perceived inconsistency undermines the principle of secular justice, fostering a sense of inequity and potentially exacerbating existing communal tensions.
The significance of Justice Nariman's call for the strict implementation of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, cannot be overstated. He likens the ongoing disputes over religious sites across the country to 'hydra heads,' emphasizing the urgent need for a decisive and comprehensive approach to prevent the escalation of religious conflicts. The Act, designed to prevent future disputes over religious places, stands as a vital legal instrument to curtail communal disharmony. Justice Nariman's advocacy for its strict enforcement reflects a deep concern about the potential for escalating religious conflict if these disputes remain unresolved. His suggestion to have the relevant sections of the judgment read out in every District and High Court demonstrates a pragmatic approach to ensure the Act's widespread understanding and application. The aim is to establish a clear legal precedent and effectively prevent future religious conflicts from arising.
Beyond the legal arguments, Justice Nariman's criticism extends to the apparent lack of accountability in the handling of the mosque demolition case. His pointed observation regarding the post-retirement appointment of the CBI judge who acquitted all the accused in the case highlights a perceived flaw in the system. This raises questions about the impartiality and integrity of the judicial process and its susceptibility to political influence. The juxtaposition of the acquittal of those accused in the demolition and the subsequent rewarding of the judge with a high-profile post-retirement position underscores a systemic concern about potential conflicts of interest and the erosion of public trust in the judicial system. Such perceptions can have severe ramifications for the legitimacy of the court's decisions and the overall integrity of the legal system. The lack of accountability in this instance creates a sense of injustice and undermines the public's faith in a fair and equitable judicial process.
The implications of Justice Nariman's critique extend far beyond the specifics of the Ayodhya case. His concerns about secularism, the potential for communal disharmony, and the need for accountability within the judicial system are fundamental issues that require serious consideration. His call for a stricter interpretation and enforcement of the Places of Worship Act represents a proactive attempt to prevent future religious conflicts. The lack of accountability highlighted in the judge's post-retirement appointment points to a larger problem within the Indian legal system, namely the need for greater transparency and mechanisms to address potential conflicts of interest. The overall impact of Justice Nariman's statement is a call for a deeper reflection on the role of the judiciary in safeguarding secular values and promoting communal harmony in India. It is a reminder that the legal system must not only deliver justice but also maintain public trust and faith in its impartiality and commitment to the principles of the Indian Constitution.
Source: Travesty of Justice that secularism not given its due in Ayodhya Verdict: former SC Judge Nariman