“Why Did Supreme Court Direct Construction of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple?” Justice Muralidhar

Former judge of Delhi High Court, Dr. S Muralidhar recently has said that the Supreme Court took a conscious decision not to push the mediation process between the parties involved in the Ayodhya dispute forward. 

The Senior Advocate has claimed that a Supreme Court-appointed mediation panel comprising retired Supreme Court judge Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla, Sri Sri Ravi Sankar and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu, which was appointed on March 8, 2019 had during the course of hearings, told the court that some of the parties involved desired to settle the dispute.

Speaking at the AG Noorani Memorial Lecture held at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, Muralidhar said that on October 16, 2019, a final report of the mediators was placed before court which stated that a settlement was arrived at between some parties and was signed by the Chairman of the Sunni Central Waqf Board which was ready to relinquish its right subject to certain conditions.

On the settlement being viewed by the Supreme Court as not being agreed to by all the parties, Muralidhar said, "If the judges had sat with the parties, maybe some negotiated settlement would have been arrived at".

Muralidhar also expressed his discomfort with the Ayodhya verdict being completely a discussion on the Places of Worship Act. He further said that the Supreme Court used its Article 142 powers to give a direction that nobody asked for. "There is not a single prayer saying that please direct them to construct a temple..Why did the Supreme Court have to direct the construction of a temple...There is no legal basis for it..There is no prayer. There is no issue framed. This is completely outside the realm of the suits before the Supreme Court..".

He also referred to the Supreme Court’s inaction on the suo motu contempt petition initiated against former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh, after the Babri Masjid demolition and said that its conduct was an instance of “unforgivable institutional amnesia”.

"This is institutional amnesia, which in my view is unforgivable, of an act which the Supreme Court itself found was an egregious crime,” he added.

Despite the Supreme Court talking about the Places of Worship Act in the Ayodhya verdict, Muralidhar has said that over 17 suits have been filed across the country including that of Gyanvapi, Shahi Idgah and Sambhal Masjid. he also commended former CJI Sanjiv Khanna for putting a pause of these suits till the validity of the Worship Act is decided by the Supreme Court.

Retired Supreme Court judge, Justice Rohinton Nariman last year while delivering a lecture had called the Ayodhya judgment to be a very curious judgment. "Nobody knows who the author was..", he had added. The retire judge also referred to Supreme Court's finding that there was no RAM TEMPLE under the structure which remained after demolition of the Babri Masjid.

On the Supreme Court's finding that inner courtyard of Babri Masjid was not in exclusive possession of the Muslims, Justice Nariman had said, "Supreme Court jumped to the conclusion that composite whole of the Babri Masjid belonged to the Hindus...". Justice Nariman further observed it being a great TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE that secularism was not given its due at all in the Ayodhya Ram Mandir judgment.