Justice Rohinton Nariman criticized the increasing number of legal suits challenging the status of religious sites, calling them contrary to the Places of Worship Act. He highlighted that the Ayodhya verdict explicitly stated that the character of all places of worship is fixed as of August 15, 1947. The former Supreme Court judge emphasized that such suits violate the Act and clarified that they should be dismissed based on the law.
New Delhi: Former Supreme Court judge Rohinton Nariman expressed his concerns over recent lawsuits seeking surveys of mosques and dargahs, stating,
“We find today, like hydra heads popping up all over the country, there is suit after suit filed all over the place… Now not only concerning mosques but also dargahs.”
He warned that such actions could lead to “communal tension and disharmony,” which contradicts the ideals set forth in the Indian Constitution and the Places of Worship Act.
During the inaugural lecture of the Justice A M Ahmadi Foundation, Nariman emphasized the significance of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, noting that it effectively freezes the “religious character” of places of worship to their status as of August 15, 1947.
He stated,
“You will not look to the past. You will not try to counter historical wrongs by breaching the rule of law or by asking courts to do the same.”
Justice Nariman also highlighted the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ayodhya verdict, which he believes underscores the importance of the Act. He remarked that the court’s declaration should be applied in all district and High Courts to address the recent suits, as these five pages from the Ayodhya judgment serve as a binding declaration of law.
He questioned the Ayodhya court’s finding that the structure beneath the mosque was “probably a temple,” suggesting that it overlooked relevant archaeological evidence, including the discovery of Buddhist and Jain artifacts at the site.
He also disagreed with the classification of the inner courtyard as a disputed site, stating,
“Now it was disputed in the sense that there were egregious attempts to dislodge them (Muslims) contrary to the rule of law.”
Reflecting on his professional experiences with cases stemming from the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992, Justice Nariman noted that two FIRs filed in the aftermath: one against the karsevaks who attacked the mosque and another against political leaders who allegedly incited the violence.
He remarked,
“Until it came to me… in 2017, when I was sitting with Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, nothing had taken place in these two FIRs for 25 years.”
Justice Nariman recalled that he ordered the two separate trials to be heard together by Special Judge Surendra Kumar Yadav in Lucknow, with a timeline of two years.
However, when the Special Judge requested an extension, Justice Nariman revealed,
“What was not known to us was that he was due to retire… I think we made an unprecedented order which is that he will not retire until he goes to judgment.”
He continued,
“It took him three and a half years to go to judgment, and you know what he did? He acquitted everybody. And after acquitting everybody, what happened? He retired and was made uplokayukta in UP. This is the state of affairs in this country.”
The event also included remarks from senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi and a book discussion featuring journalist Vikram Chandra and Insiyah Vahanvaty.