LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Ayodhya verdict: HC says divide land into 3 parts

Page no : 2

Manish Singh (Advocate)     01 October 2010

Its extremely pathetic for us to comment at public platform the way Ms Rekha has conveyed.

It's a sensitive issue for both the faiths and we must respect that.

I personally welcomed the judgment as the eventual outcome was that mandir and maszid both should be built together which will further integrate India and bring harmony between both the religions. I think it hardly matters   for common people of India whether a temple or maszid is going to be built there since there are several other important  issues prevailing in our society which needs to be given importance to if we as Indians wish to move ahead.

We are all humans after all and these divisions of caste /creed/religion are all man made things and we must not fight over these trivial issues.

Radhey (Owner)     01 October 2010

A mandir and mosque both be built.

If Mandirs are god and mosques are also good,thus goddness would double by constructing both at one place.

So there would be peace also.No other way to satisfy both the parties.Similar experiments have succeeded at other place of this globe already.

 
Coreect me, if i am wrong.


Basavaraj (Asst, Manager-Legal)     01 October 2010

The High Court Judgment and Gist of the Judgment are made avialable in this forum also. In the Home page we can find it in NEWS segment.

 

According to me we have no loca standi to talk about Hon'ble High Court Judgment. As it an histrical order. We are living in India. We should not try to make somthing confusion.

As in judiciary we have an appealable provision, which will be ended in the SC.

I request all learned members not to comment any such intetioanlly and emtionally psotings, please.

 

Let us approraicate and accept the judgment.

Regards

Basavaraj

Democratic Indian (n/a)     02 October 2010

 

@BASAVARAJ.R

"According to me we have no loca standi to talk about Hon'ble High Court Judgment." I disagree and believe court itself has given implicit locus standi to each and every upright citizen, who wants to see rule of law and a bright future for this country, on the following grounds:

 

 

1) People of our Constitutional Republic of India, approach courts of law to get relief based on law, evidence & Constitution. This judgment gave primacy to “faith and belief” and not law, evidence and Constitution. People do not approach courts to get relief based on "faith & belief" that will undermine law, evidence and Constitution. If people are to be delivered judgments by courts of law on basis of "faith & belief", why would people approach and respect courts of law?

 

 

2) It was a title suit and not a partition suit. What kind of legal precedent is being set by High Court for deciding future title suits? This verdict is more in the nature of arbitration than deciding on the title of the land.

 

 

3) This country is run by the Constitution and the rule of law, and not by rule of "faith & belief" of some groups. This judgment is not a good sign for the country, for the Constitution and for the judiciary itself.

 

 

4) The judges have tried to find an amicable settlement of the issue. This is not the mandate of the court of law. Because amicable settlement was not possible for 60 years, that is why the concerned parties approached the court. Now the court has ordered more or less the same thing which concerned parties were not interested in. The court in a way, shrugged responsibility entrusted to it, to uphold the rule of law and Constitution.

 

 

5) One can legitimately argue that this judgement effectively regularises the encroachment by one group on a place of worship of another group, by placing the idols in 1949.

 

 

6) The judgment says that because Hindus believe Ram was born there they have the right to occupy the place. Now this is something that can happen in arbitration, but not in a court of law. A court of law has to make its decision on the basis of evidence presented before it.

 

 

7) A few years ago the Archaeological Survey of India had advised the Government of India that Ram is a mythological figure and not a historical one. If according to the ASI, Ram is a mythological figure, on what basis can the court say that because the Hindus believe this is where Ram was born and therefore it must be given credence?

 

 

8) The court seems to have made is that the mosque was not built according to the Shariah principles. Now if it can be ruled that it is a religious place for the one group since they were praying there, the same kind of rules and logic must be applied to both cases. It can be argued, for instance, that it is a religious place for the other group too, whether or not it has been built on Shariah principles or not since the Muslims were praying there for a number of years.


 


 

 

1 Like

Khaleel Ahmed (Legal Advisor)     02 October 2010

Mr.Democratic Indian,

For your kind information this is not the right forum to check  and discuss the loopholes of the judgement. Original  Plaintiff Mr. Hashim Ansari, aged 90 years stated that , he shall obey the Judgement. He have no intention to file appeal before supreme court. Temple and Mosque can be built as per the Honourable court verdict. Every body must accept the verdict.

Democratic Indian (n/a)     02 October 2010

Mr. Khaleel Ahmed,

"For your kind information this is not the right forum to check  and discuss the loopholes of the judgement."

This is a law forum, if we cannot discuss the points of law, check the judgments, loopholes etc. then what else do we discuss here? Last time I checked before postng, there were plenty of cases that were discussed about their points of law etc. etc. in LCI. If you want only this particular case not be be discussed, then it is totaly a different matter.

"Original  Plaintiff Mr. Hashim Ansari, aged 90 years stated that , he shall obey the Judgement." Of course every one should obey the judgment. Nowhere I have told anyone not to obey the judgment.

"He have no intention to file appeal before supreme court." Nowhere I have told anyone to file an appeal  or not file appeal in Supreme Court.

"Temple and Mosque can be built as per the Honourable court verdict. Every body must accept the verdict." Nowhere I have told what should be built or not be built. Nowhere I have told everybody must not accept the verdict.

All that is a matter of concern is, a slow and steady drift taking place, away from the Constitution and the rule of law. Courts are aproached for relief as they are gaurdians of rule of law and Constitution, not because of some other reasons.

‘‘Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial ... the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding’’— U. S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis, 1928

"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."  ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

Khaleel Ahmed (Legal Advisor)     02 October 2010

Mr. Democratic Indian,

I am unable to understand why you have kept your identity in secret. If you want to discuss and raise any proptest you should have disclosed your identity. It is the fault of the admin, they have no mandatory rules for the identity of the participants in this forum.

Democratic Indian (n/a)     03 October 2010

Mr. Khaleel Ahmed,

"I am unable to understand why you have kept your identity in secret." You are asking this pointless question, since you are unable to unerstand/or do not want to understand the ideas expressed by me. Your assertion lacks merit on the following grounds:

1) Anyone asking for more information that what is required for the purpose, is nothing but supeflous and specious. Why instead of giving importance to the ideas expressed online, why you are so keen on knowing the "identity". May I know what is driving your curiousity for "identity" rather than ideas and your purpose it will serve? May I also know how will it change the merit of the ideas expressed or your perception of the same ideas?

2) Your assertion assumes that people have no right to protect their online privacy and security from online attemps of hacking, spam, cyber stalking etc. etc. etc.

3) Your assertion assumes that people have no right of online self defense for their privacy and security from online attemps of hacking, spam cyber stalking etc. etc. etc.

3) Your assertion assumes that anonymous free speech has no place for people nor a right in a healthy democracy, which is contrary to the ideas of democracy, freedom and liberty.

4) As you have CHOSEN to reveal your identity online out of your free choice, I choose not to reveal my identity out of my free choice. Since this is a open website visible all over the world to anybody and everybody, being a law abiding citizen, I feel it neccessary that only those perons whom I personally know should be able to know my identity or any matter related to my privacy. My ideas are open for public consumption and discussion, my privacy is not open for public consumption and discussion. Does anybody find any problem with it? I hope nobody would not find problem with it. If yes then it is their problem, not my problem.

"It is the fault of the admin, they have no mandatory rules for the identity of the participants in this forum."

As I have already shown above in point 1, 2, 3, 4 that your assertion lacks merit. Also Admin are very well aware how to run their website for profit and what they should be doing and not doing in interest of their website.

Mr. Khaleel Ahmed please do not take my postings personally, they are only the expression of my ideas. If you disagree with them, you are welcome to express your ideas with reason and logic. If I am wrong I will humbly accept that with due apologies. Hope it clarifies the matter.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register