Justice Ganguly raises questions on Ayodhya verdict

Supreme Court Retired Judge Justice Ashok Kumar Ganguly said on Saturday that the Supreme Court’s decision on Ayodhya has raised doubts in his mind. READ MORE

Justice Ganguly said, “Minorities have seen for generations that there was a mosque there. The mosque was demolished. According to the Supreme Court’s decision, a temple will be built there. This decision has raised a doubt in my mind. As a student of the Constitution, I am having some difficulty in accepting it. ‘’

72-year-old Justice Ganguly is the one who gave the verdict in the two-G spectrum allocation case in 2012.

Justice Ganguly said, “In 1856–57 there may not have been any evidence of offering Namaz, but since 1949, Namaz has been read here.” This is proof. When our Constitution came into existence, Namaz was being read here. In a place where namaz was recited and if there was a mosque at that place, then the minorities have the right to defend their religious freedom. People have got fundamental rights in this constitution.

Justice Ganguly said, “What will a Muslim think after this decision?” There was a mosque there for years, which was demolished. Now the Supreme Court has given permission to build a temple there. This permission was given on the basis that the land was attached to Ram Lala. Centuries ago, who had the title to the land, the Supreme Court will decide it? Will the Supreme Court forget that when the Constitution came there was a mosque? There are provisions in the Constitution and it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to protect it.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Ganguly said, “It is not the responsibility of the Supreme Court to decide what was there before the Constitution came into existence.” India was not a democratic republic at that time. Then there was a mosque, there was a temple, there was a Buddhist stupa, there was a church… If we sit to decide on this, many temples-mosques and other structures will have to be broken. We cannot proceed on the basis of mythological ‘facts’.

The decision on the Ayodhya dispute was described by historian DN Jha as disappointing.

On the Ayodhya dispute, the Supreme Court has mentioned a special report in its decision, which said that there was no Hindu temple under Babri Masjid.

‘Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid: A Historian’s Report to the Nation’ was prepared by a team of four independent historians. This report was submitted to the government.

Professor Suraj Bhan, Athar Ali, R.S. Sharma and DN Jha scrutinized the historical and archaeological evidence and rejected the belief in his report that it was said that there was a Hindu temple under the Babri Masjid.

The author of the report and well-known historian Professor DN Jha has given his reaction to the decision of the Supreme Court.

He said that the faith of Hindus has been given importance in this and the basis of the decision has been made on faulty archaeological science. Professor DN Jha called it very disappointing.

Ayodhya case: Did the remains of the temple be found in the archaeological survey?

When asked what was the conclusion in his fact-finding Report — Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid: A Historians’ Report to the Nation?

DN Jha says that this report was submitted to the government before the demolition of the mosque in 1992. According to him, every evidence that was present for this report was thoroughly investigated. After which it was concluded that there was no Ram temple under the mosque.

So what else should ASI do? On this, Professor DN Jha says that ASI has always played a suspicious role in the Ayodhya dispute.

He says, “Before the demolition, when we went to the old fort to investigate the ancient things related to Ayodhya, the ASI did not give us the site notebook of Trench IV, which contained very significant evidence.”

“It was clearly a case of suppressing the evidence. And after the demolition, the ASI carried out the excavation with a preconceived belief. It suppressed the evidence which cut the theory of the temple.

Expected the ASI She goes to see the scientific norms while digging in someplace. “

In such a situation, what will this decision mean for India?

To this, Professor DN Jha says, “This decision is inclined towards majoritarianism. It is not good for our country.”

Originally published at https://www.mubahisa.in.