Let us wait for a judgement that will give answer to all important questions.

The order of the supreme court staying the delivery of judgement by the Luknow bench of the Allahabad high court is curious from any angle. The parties doesn’t need it. The judgement is ready. The country was eager to know the judgement. A nonserious was playing on behalf of some interested persons or parties. our legal system is the ultimate loser.

After all it was a title suit decided on the basis of legal evidence. The losing party has every chance to appealto the supreme court if it can make out a case that it invoves serious questions of law or fact which essentially is the case.

Two destuctions in 1528 and 1992 were no doubt criminal assaults on the civilisational ethos of India. The men who perpetrated in 1528 were not amenable to any law. They were invaders from across the border. But the fruits of their attrocities continued to hound the psyche of of the victims for several centuries in the past.

One universal principle of criminal in any civilised society is that the wrongdoer shall not be allowed to enjoy the fruits of crime. For example if a murderer killed the victim putting himself in a position to inherit the property of the victim, the law disentitles him to any right of inheritance.

But what happens in the following case? If a criminal gang comes and occupies my property, builds some structures there and starts enjoying it as of right and claims title to it? If the the system of administration, governance, law and justice all are under the command of the criminal trespasser and I am exposed to the fate of a civilisational wrong what can I expect?

When there is an opportunity I have every right to repossess my property and destroy whatever has been erected without my permission. Home minister Chidambaram spoke about prescription. Question is who is entitled to prescriptive right in this case. Peaceful possession without any challange only gives such a right.

When redressal mechanism is absent or when every attempt to recover is thwarted by alien concepts of a God given right to take possession of the property belonging to infidels, it is meaninglesss. Question is whether repossession right is exercised on the earliest occasion when it is available.

If it is proved that a temple preexisted in the site where the disputed structure existed, then a question arises as to who is the owner of the temple. According to legal precedents already established, the owner of a temple is the presiding diety itself. In the instant case it is Sreeramachandra and nobody else. So no body has any right to alienate the property under any circumstances.

A family temple belonging to my uncle on partition was given his eldest son. He in turn gave the temple and the property to a dubious trust. The trust turned out to be interested in ruining the temple itself. Then the person next in line file a suit to invalidate the deed of transfer on the ground that no body has any right to alienate the property in such a way as to go into undesirable hands. The court restored the property to the family on the plea that the owner of the temple is the diety itself. All others are just beneficieries.

The supreme court approved this in Adneer Mudh case in Karnataka earlier. What a responsible nation after becoming independent from the clutches of foreign feifdom should do is the question.

Sardar Patel and Rajendra Prasad solved the issue of Somanath once and for all. Gobinda Ballabh Pant was able and willing to to do like wise in the case of Ayodhya. But Nehru wanted to become smart and he instructed Pant to remove Ram idol from the disputed structure which was placed immediately after obtaining freedom. But it is another matter that Pant didnot remove it. But the result of Nehru’s intervention delayed justice for 63 years more.

Anyway it is going to be a judgement of far reaching consequences. Let us wait for a judgement that will give answer to all important questions.

Responses