According to the former High Court judge, “using a mosque or any part thereof for Hindu prayers is tantamount to converting its fundamental nature as it amounts to using a place of worship or shrine” for purposes incompatible with his character “”.
Is the Court’s interim order authorizing a simple investigation a problem?
“The plaintiffs may wish to locate signs of idols, paintings or other Hindu symbols to support their claim that the mosque originated where there must have previously been a Hindu temple,” Judge Saran said. “But as a result of the 1991 law, which was introduced to end endless communal strife and discord, this claim cannot now be raised.”
Therefore, he said that, “as a first step, the pending claim under Ordinance 7, Rule 11 should be decided as to whether the complaint is even admissible on the ground that the Gyan Vapi Mosque, in its form current, existed on Independence Day, 1947 on the disputed land.
He noted that this is even though the mosque was built by “Muslim invaders” all those years ago, occupying a temple.
Further, observing that sections 6(2) and 6(3) also include attempts and aiding and abetting the conversion of places of worship, the retired judge stated The quintet:
“From this perspective, the lower courts are complicit in the perpetration of illegality and disregard of the Ayodhya decision.”
The Supreme Court had, in the Ayodhya judgment, praised the law on places of worship and declared that “non-regression is a fundamental characteristic of fundamental constitutional principles, of which secularism is a central element”.
