By Abdul Bari Masoud
TIA

NEW DELHI: Former Chief Justice of India, A.M. Ahmadi has revealed that destruction of the Babri Masjid could have been prevented had the Supreme Court acted on the then Attorney-General, Milon Banerjee’s repeated plea.

“Had the Supreme Court acted on the then Attorney-General, Milon Banerjee’s incessant plea of making the union government as the receiver of the Babri masjid  and had not allowed symbolic kar seva  there, the destruction of the Masjid could have prevented” Ahmadi said at seminar here on Saturday.

At the seminar, “Ayodhya Judgment: Civil Society Response,” organized by the Institute of Objective Studies, he recalled how the then Attorney-General, Milon Banerjee, had repeatedly urged the two-judge Bench of Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah and justice G.N. Ray to consider appointing the Central government as the receiver of the land where kar seva was to be performed to foreclose the possibility of demolition.

“Mr. Banerjee told the court that he had definite information that the mosque was about to be demolished. Instead, the court passed an order allowing a symbolic kar seva”, he recalled adding that the had order not been passed, the mosque would have been standing today. He further pointed out that the apex court had not defined what symbolic kar seva meant.

Justice Ahmadi, who was the part of the five-judge Bench that heard the one-line presidential reference on Ayodhya, has said the Allahabad High court judgment has an ominous portent and it has threw  a larger question how to protect the very secular foundation and constitution of the country. He said a situation has been created to pressurize the community to give up the claim over the Babri masjid.  
 
Commenting on recent Allahabad High Court verdict, the former Chief Justice of India, said that now it has become a question how to protect the Constitution and secular ethos of the country.

“The Ayodhya dispute is no more remained as a Hindu-Muslim issue after the Allahabad High Court verdict, it has become a question as how to protect the Constitution of the country” he noted.

Justice Ahmadi said he was ‘taken aback’ by the Allahabad High Court judgment on the Ayodhya title suits. “I doubt if this can even be called a judgment.” He said the judgment had to be contested because at stake were “the ethos of rule of law, the democratic system and the Constitution itself.”

Recalling the Presidential reference, he said the question was whether a Hindu temple or any other structure pre-existed at the site where the mosque stood but the five- judge bench said: “We were sure that we did not want to exhume old issues.”

He also took strong exception to the apex court for handing out a “one-day simple imprisonment” to Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh who played key role in the demolition of the masjid. It is to be mentioned that Kalyan Singh made a sworn affidavit to the apex court that the mosque would be protected at any cost.

He said the demolition of the mosque was culmination of the process started in 1920s by Hindutva ideologues   Sarvarkar and Gowalkar. The Allahabad judgment should be seen in that perspective.

Noted lawyer MM Kashyap, who was pleaded the petition of late Aslam Bhure, observed that contempt and criminal cases against  eight Sangh Parivar leaders including L K Advani, Uma Bharti were still pending in the Supreme Court since 1992. He said the Allahabad High Court had totally ignored the Muslim point of view. 

Participants at the seminar made three common points. The judgment should be contested, not on grounds of Hindu faith versus Muslim faith, but on points of law, secularism and constitutional principles. Secondly, the memo of appeal before the Supreme Court should be “drawn up by competent hands” and informed by “cohesion and consistency.” Thirdly, while a settlement was possible at a later date, there could not be any diversion from the immediate task of filing an appeal.

The former Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh, S.M.A Qazmi, said the Muslim side ought to examine its own shortcomings in pleadings and adducing evidence in the High Court and cure the defects with “unity of purpose” and dedication. “We have to put our heads together and bring complete cohesion in the preparation of the case.”

Former MP and president of All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat Syed Shahabuddin observed that it was open for any court to examine issues of faith if the conflict arose within the same religious community. However, when two faiths were involved, the decision had been grounded in constitutional law. “Neither the dharma shastra nor the Koran is valid in this case.” He urged all Muslims organizations and secular quarters to intervene and file a PIL against Allahabad judgment in the Supreme Court as it has set a very dangerous precedent.

Echoing his views, Prof Sudip Jain said on the very basis of judgment the Jain community had the first right on Ayodhya as it was the janambhomi of Jain spiritual gurus and their temples were demolished to build Hindu mandirs.    

Member-Secretary of the Sachar Commission Abusaleh Shariff was worried that the High Court verdict could become the new benchmark in deciding cases. He also asked the speakers to examine the impact of the judgment on the “future of the Muslim psyche.”

IOS chairman Dr Manzoor Alam, Dr Mohammad Fakhruddin, Justice B A, Khan, historian Dr Shabi Ahmad and former VC of Agra university Dr Manzoor Ahmad and others also put their view in the seminar. Passing a 4-point resolution, the seminar called for challenging the Allahabad verdict in the apex court with full force.