Ayodhya issue

Querist : Anonymous (Querist) 26 September 2010 This query is : Resolved
can the judgement be kept in abeyance to secure public tranquility ?

Follow Query

Report Abuse

Parthasarathi Loganathan (Expert) 26 September 2010
Yes our courts are prudent enough to understand the basic necessities of a State. I have raised the same issue when our PM needless appealed to the general public voicing the decisions of cabinet committee meeting on Ayodhya Judgement beforehand

s.subramanian (Expert) 26 September 2010
Maintenance of law and order and public tranquility is the sovereign duty of the executive and the legislature. The judiciary can interfere only when there is a gross failure on the part of the executive and the judiciary.

If the court chooses to keep the delivery of judgement in abeyance on mere apprehension of break down of law and order,then it cannot deliver it for ever. It has to remain in the hands of the judges only. It has to perform its duty of delivering the judgement and leave the rest to the executive and the legislature . The judiciary is setting up a wrong precedent by keeping the judgment in abeyance at the request of one of the parties to the case. When the party comes to court for decision how can be allowed to prevent the court from delivering its verdict. What is done in this case amounts to interference with the administration of justice and the concerned person is liable for contempt of court. The matter requires very serious consideration in this regard. Unless it is properly dealt with it may become a handy tool in the hands of some unscrupulous persons to make the judiciary dance to their tunes. It will erode into the independence of the judiciary.It is in the interest of equity and fairness that such frivolous attempts to prevent the delivery of judgments are nipped in the bud. Or else people will lose faith in the judicial system as a whole since the whole country is watching carefully as to what is happening.

Kiran Kumar (Expert) 26 September 2010
in fact the delivery Ayodhya judgment has been scuttled intentionally...it all seems to be a political game.

the court shall pass the judgment fearlessly. there are sufficient provisions for appeal, since judiciary a constitutional authority its verdict shall be accepted by all.

maintenance of law and order is duty of executive, for maintenance of law and order the other judicial processes can not be halted.

Parthasarathi Loganathan (Expert) 26 September 2010
Yes That was exactly my apprehension (which I queried in my earlier posts seeking opinion from our learned friends) when our Prime Minister made a appeal to public to maintain public tranquility before the delivery of Ayodhya Judgement

Uma parameswaran (Expert) 26 September 2010
The reason may not be public tranquility issue .The matter is related to history and present political situation.Time taken in application of judicial mind in sensitive issue may be the reason.

Chanchal Nag Chowdhury (Expert) 27 September 2010
U are probably referring to the stay by the SC. in the Ayodha case.
My opinion is that the SC had no business staying the delivery of judgment & if it ultimately prevents the Allahabad HC from delivering the judgment, it will set an extremely bad example.
Public tranquility issue is none of the court's business.If the elected govt. cannot take care of it , it may quit.
A lot of hue & cry was raised when the SC passed orders for free distribution of excess foodgrains which would otherwise rot. The PM & other dignitaries openly termed it as intrusion of the judiciary in the executive domain. That can lead to the conclusion that the Govt. has the unfettered right to waste food & the judiciary cannot interfere. Probably the PM is legally right if morally wrong.
Going by the same argument,the SC has no business to prevent the delivery of judgment as it will amount to intrusion of the judiciary in the executive domain as maintenance of law & order is the duty of the executive.

Ayodhya issue

Similar Resolved Queries :