By Abu Sheima
Ayodhya once again became the hot issue after Allahabad Court verdict on 30.09.2010. According to court, the disputed land divided in to three parts, two for Hindus and one for Muslims and the location of the mosque belongs to Hindus. This ruling triggered nation wide criticism, especially from Muslims.
One of the veteran political leader said regarding this verdict: ”The verdict for a three way division of the land is, however, based on faith and belief. This aspect of the set of judgments is disturbing as it accords primacy to religious belief and faith over and above the facts and the record of evidence. It will set a dangerous precedent for the future. When the matter goes to the Supreme Court on appeal, it is to be hoped that this issue will be addressed.”
In short we may find following remarks in general:
- Court tried to bring peace and reconciliation at the rate of constitutional democracy and rule of law.
- Court invoked faith of religion and ignored the historical and archeological fact.
- Triggered criticism from legal experts and litigants want to challenge it in supreme court
- Later on, this judgment may be used as precedent for other disputes, based upon invoking faith.
- It leads to feel that faith of a majority play greater role in court judgments.
- If faith is important to community, law is equally important to constitution.
- Hindus are subscribed to different faith (for example Aryans and Dravidians), therefore invoking faith is still questionable.
- Celebrating victory faith over law is dangerous development in a secular nation like India.
- People of India kept in self control and stood for peace after the verdict.