The Nature of Judicial Power: Senior Advocate, Rakesh Dwivedi

Possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing” is the decisive observation. Importantly, the Supreme Court has in strongest terms castigated the damage caused to the mosque in 1934, its desecration in 1949 leading to the ouster of Muslims, and the eventual demolition of the mosque on December 6, 1992. It observed that they “constituted a serious violation of the rule of law”. “The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship,” the ruling said. “The entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.”

This is a strong condemnation of the political movement which led to demolition of the mosque. It was a grave wrong done to the Muslims. For rectifying this wrong, the Court exercised power under Article 142 of The Constitution, meant to enable doing complete justice, by directing giving of 5 acres of land to the Muslim Central Waqf Board to build a mosque. With this balancing, one would hope that a grand temple and a grand mosque would come up in Ayodhya and both pooja and namaz would go on peacefully and amicably.

Strikingly, the Judgment rolls over in favour of Hindus on a slender basis. The Court takes the compensation route rather than restitution by invoking Article 142. Maybe Hindus, having demolished the mosque, should now voluntarily aid the construction of the mosque.

– Senior Advocate, Rakesh Dwivedi, The Economic Times [11.11.2019].