A missed opportunity in Ayodhya
The HinduIt was never a legal dispute. The essence of the judgment The Supreme Court then had the opportunity to deliver a landmark judgment which, even if mindful of the social forces swirling around it, would uphold constitutional principles and affirm that India is a country where all citizens, irrespective of their faith, are equal citizens. True, the ruling does in its own way try to achieve a balance and argues that, “the relief moulded in a manner which preserves the constitutional values of justice, fraternity, human dignity and the equality of religious belief.” Towards this end, the verdict says that there is no evidence that the Babri Masjid had been built by destroying a temple, that the events of 1934, 1949 and 1992 “constitute a serious violation of the law” and awards the Muslims five acres of land elsewhere in Ayodhya to build a mosque. Dignity irrespective of faith But is this in keeping with constitutional values and does it ensure human dignity to all citizens, irrespective of their faith, as the Supreme Court said it must do? The Supreme Court then did not turn the title suit into an opportunity and draw on Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver a verdict that would have shown its refusal to tolerate assaults on constitutional values.