Ayodhya verdict | Several positives for the Muslim plaintiffs
The HinduThe judgment in the hotly contested property dispute of Ayodhya has finally been delivered by a five-judge Supreme Court Bench. Though the apex court accepted that a wrong had been done when the Babri Masjid was desecrated in 1949 through installation of idols and also held that the demolition of the mosque in 1992 was illegal, in the final order, it had to give the entire disputed site to the Hindu plaintiffs though law of equity says that one who seeks equity must come with clean hands. In Para 201, the court observed that “the purpose for which juristic personality is conferred cannot be evolved into a Trojan horse that permits, on the basis of religious faith and belief, the extinguishing of all competing proprietary claims over property.” It said that a method of offering worship unique to one religion cannot result in conferral of an absolute title. Seventh, the Muslim plaintiffs’ argument that title of property cannot be decided on the basis of travellers’ accounts was also accepted and the court rightly said that some portions of these accounts, including one by the 18th-century Austrian missionary, Joseph Tieffenthaler, were based on hearsay. This seems to be the most controversial part of the verdict as the court used freedom of religious faith to uphold the Hindu case when it said that “whether a belief is justified lies beyond ken of judicial scrutiny.” It went on to hold that “once the witnesses have deposed to the basis of the belief and there is nothing to doubt its genuineness, it is not open to the court to question the basis of belief.