Background

The Allahabad High Court Judgment on the Ram Janma Bhoomi I Babri Masjid was widely castigated for being a political judgment giving primacy to ‘Faith’ over the majesty of the Law, for being based on claims of faith instead of on hard evidence and cold facts of law.

Is this a correct perspective or is it the view of those who are unable to accept a judgment which they perceive as being against them? Perhaps a better appreciation will arise out of better understanding of what is meant by Faith, by Law, and Justice. (See-’The Indian Judicial System – Comments on’) A proper perspective may allow us to perceive whether Justice may have been best served by this judgment.

Secularism is a methodology of separating the Laws of all Religions from the Common Laws of the Land, so that the Laws of the Land can be made equally applicable to ALL. It is NOT just the ‘Separation of Religion from the State and definitely NOT’ the ‘Treating of all Religions Equally’.

‘Business India’ Magazine reports some legal worthies as having even said that the Judgment was arrived at and delivered in the style of a Panchayat – which strives to sort out differences and settle disputes using mostly ‘Horse sense and good Faith’.

Is that really wrong? Isn’t it the merit of the Judgment that most people see it as the best solution for a very difficult situation – a judgment which could perhaps now encourage the erstwhile litigants to work out an even better solution for themselves and for those they represent?

The Courts consider the Laws, and the applicable circumstantial evidence, in addition to cold, hard facts. The Courts determine the extent and application of Rights or Obligations according to the Law, in as objective a way as possible. The Courts must also, ensure that justice is done. Justice involves determination of wider dimensions of Equity and Fairness. Many times, it has to go beyond the Law to deliver a fair and equitable Judgment. Justice calls for consideration of many other relevant circumstances (as when determining the case for self- defence, or for use of disproportionate force etc.). Consideration of whether possession or occupation under threat or coercion accords any ‘adverse possession rights’ however, long be such possession or occupation? It calls for consideration whether introducing contrary claims (by secretly setting up idols) can be taken as a demonstration of objection to such coercive possession. It considers all such and many other relevant matters, in an attempt to see the total picture before pronouncing Judgment. Even considering the claims backed by faith of the affected people.

Pages: 1 2 3 4