Former Supreme Court Judge slams Babri order

By admin

Nov.Fri,19/01:18:37 PM

Comment(0)

November 10, 2019

The Supreme Court announced its final verdict in the contentious Ayodhya case on November 9, less than a month after it concluded final hearing in the case.

Justice AK Ganguly, ayodhya verdict

“I am perplexed and disturbed. The constituion gives the right to every one and justice has to be given to everyone but in this case the justice has not been done to minorities,” Retd. Justice AK Ganguly said.

As the Supreme Court put an end to the centuries-old Ayodhya Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case on November 9, by giving the disputed land to Ram Lalla, the share of support and opposition started to pour in as soon as the verdict was announced.

Post the Ayodhya Verdict, Retired Supreme Court Judge AK Ganguly expressed his discontent with the apex court’s decision of giving the land to the Centre for the construction of Ram temple and said that the minorities have been “wronged”.

The Supreme Court announced its final verdict in the contentious Ayodhya case on November 9, less than a month after it concluded final hearing in the case.

The apex court gave the disputed land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, recognising Lord Ram — the deity Ram Lalla as a legitimate legal personality. The entire 2.77-acre of disputed property was given to Ram Lalla.

“I am perplexed and disturbed. The constituion gives the right to every one and justice has to be given to everyone but in this case the justice has not been done to minorities,” Retd. Justice AK Ganguly said.

“This is undeniable and it is also undeniable that the mosque waa demolished by sheer act of vandalism. Even the SC has in its verdict said that it is a gross violation of rule of law and act of vandalism. In that scenario the question is that who has been wronged. It is the minorities that have been wronged,” AK Ganguly added.

Raising questions on the verdict that has been given AK Ganguly asked, “The court has found that mosque has not been built by demolishing a temple. No archaeological evidence of temple under the mosque was found and the demolition of mosque is a gross violation of constitutional provisions. Now on what basis have they said that it is widely believed by the Hindus that the owner of the land is Ram Lalla?”

“My conscience is disturbed as a student of constitution. The Supreme Court is bound to protect the rights of the citizens including the minorities. Where does my right go?,” AK Ganguly further asked.

Raising questions on the verdict that has been given AK Ganguly asked, “The court has found that mosque has not been built by demolishing a temple. No archaeological evidence of temple under the mosque was found and the demolition of mosque is a gross violation of constitutional provisions. Now on what basis have they said that it is widely believed by the Hindus that the owner of the land is Ram Lalla?”

“My conscience is disturbed as a student of constitution. The Supreme Court is bound to protect the rights of the citizens including the minorities. Where does my right go?,” AK Ganguly further asked.

This story first appeared in India Today on November 10, 2019 here.