@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.
