PM Narendra Modi links Congress move to impeach Dipak Misra to the former CJI’s refusal to postpone the Ayodhya hearing to after 2019 elections.
New Delhi: Following in the footsteps of the leaders of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leaders and his own party, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has dragged the Supreme Court into the ongoing battle of ballots in the five states.
Modi suggested that the Congress tried to intimidate the higher judiciary, even bringing an impeachment motion against then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra in this regard.
Before Modi, several front-ranking RSS and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders have taken pot-shots at the top court for not taking into consideration the feelings of the majority Hindu community and failing to decide an issue “so close to the Hindus” on priority.
Hindus, RSS leaders have said, were “feeling insulted” that the Ram temple issue which was linked to their “faith and sentiment” was not on the court’s “priority list”.
Lawyers in Rajya Sabha
Speaking at Alwar in Rajasthan Sunday, Modi insinuated that the Supreme Court was delaying the title suit dispute in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case under pressure from the Congress and special interest lawyers. In doing so, he made the Supreme Court appear like it was under siege and was taking decisions under pressure.
To build this narrative, the prime minister even linked the absence of a timeline to decide the contentious matter by the top court to efforts of “Congress party’s lawyers who are in the Rajya Sabha”.
Modi termed this a “dangerous game”, suggesting that the Congress gave Rajya Sabha tickets to advocates practicing in the apex court who then used their privilege to threaten judges with impeachment. This not only prevented the court from hearing sensitive issues but also derailed the justice system.
He also directly linked the opposition’s failed move to impeach Misra to his refusal to postpone the Ayodhya matter to after 2019 as per the diktats of the Congress’ lawyers who are in the Rajya Sabha.
The fact that neither the Congress nor the BJP are party to the Ayodhya matter in the Supreme Court was not mentioned once by Modi.
“Congress creates an atmosphere of fear for the judiciary.. You know, when the Ayodhya case was going on, Congress Rajya Sabha leaders told the Supreme Court that they should not hear it till 2019, because there are elections,” said Modi.
The reference was to the request Congress leader and senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Muslim group, made during one of the hearings in the case last year.
Modi also assured the judiciary that while Congress leaders couldn’t be pardoned for their black deeds and for browbeating the judiciary, his party would ensure that the judiciary remained completely independent.
Also read: Ram Temple is a national issue: Haryana CM Manohar Lal Khattar
What did Sibal want?
On 5 December 2017, Sibal had urged the bench headed by Misra to defer hearing the matter till after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. He had argued that any developments in this case were likely to be used towards political ends during the elections.
However, the top court denied Sibal’s request.
Sibal, a prominent Congress leader and a senior advocate, was the counsel for Iqbal Ansari, the legal heir of Hashim Ansari, the oldest litigant in the case. Sibal had represented the Muslim faction on several occasions prior to the 5 December hearing as well.
In March, Sibal withdrew from the case. He was the only direct connection Congress had to the title dispute hearings in the top court.
What the case is about
At the heart of it, the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case is a property dispute. It involves the disputed land where the Babri Masjid, a 16th-century mosque once stood, before it was razed by kar sevaks on 6 December 1992.
In 2010, the Allahabad High Court divided the disputed land into three equal parts between the petitioners — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the deity, Ram Lalla.
The Supreme Court has stayed the Allahabad HC judgment.
Also read: Madhya Pradesh BJP leader Sahasrabuddhe challenges Congress to support Ram temple
Back in spotlight
After lying dormant since the high court judgment, the case gained prominence when BJP leader Subramanian Swamy mentioned it in the top court in March 2017.
The court commenced hearing later in December last year.
In due course, various challenges cropped up, including the call for reevaluation of the top court’s 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment. On 28 September, the apex court, in a majority 2:1 judgment, declined to refer the judgment to a larger bench.
The 1994 ruling — which allowed the Central government to acquire the disputed 2.77 acres, where the Babri Masjid stood before its demolition — held that praying in mosques is not an essential religious practice in Islam.
With this issue now decided, the apex court can hear arguments in the main Ayodhya title dispute. However, last month, the apex court adjourned the matter till next year in January and declined a plea for an early hearing.
An intervention filed by the Shia Wakf Board and a Buddhist Vineet Kumar Maurya has also been tagged with the original 13 appeals.
The legal issues surrounding one of the most controversial cases in recent times takes on added significance with the upcoming 2019 Lok Sabha elections, five months from now.
Good and well educated Hindu brothers do not want Ram temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya mainly for two reasons, firstly by destroying the Babri Masjid which is a place of worship for Muslims.
Secondly in Today’s world we are living in an age of information and age of knowledge explosion and everyone wants to know more and more about everything including religion and as a result people want to be better informed on their religions than ever before to ensure whatever they believe, worship and practice religiously are in accordance and in compliance with their most sacred holy religious scriptures.
Therefore, most of the Hindus know The Vedas are considered the most sacred of all the Hindu scriptures. There are four principal Vedas: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and Atharvaveda. Yajurveda.
The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God: “na tasya pratima asti “There is no image of Him.” [Yajurveda 32:3]5 “shudhama poapvidham” “He is bodyless and pure.” [Yajurveda 40:8]6 “Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste” “They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements” (Air, Water, Fire, etc.).
“They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti.” [Yajurveda 40:9]7 Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc.
The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God: “Ekam evadvitiyam” “He is One only without a second.” [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1 “Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah.” “Of Him there are neither parents nor lord.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2 “Na tasya pratima asti” “There is no likeness of Him.” [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3 Yajur Veda 3:32: “…Of that God you cannot make any images.” Yajur Veda 32:3: “God is formless and bodiless” Rig Veda, Vol.8,1:1: “All Praise are to Him alone” Rig Veda, Vol.6,45:16: “There is only One God, worship Him.”
Please also consider the following verse from Gita: “Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.” [Bhagavad Gita 7:20] The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. ‘gods’ besides the True God.
Also please note, as far as Ram is concerned according to Acharya Sanjay Dwivedi, Rama never claimed to be God and said as per Ramayan to his wife Sita not to worship her husband (Ram) as god but worship to One God to whom your husband Ram also worship.
Finally, in view of the above facts all must think who is going against the Astha (faith) of their own most sacred religious scriptures and it is time for the Supreme Court to take note of this and explain in order to interact and explain to the all parties concerned for a solution acceptable to all..
Lawyers are like prostitutes , it does not matter who the client is , what is important is money.
Kapil Sibbal needs money as all his money was lost in demonitization.
Manish Tiwari is just like the pimp in G B Road
The apex court was not very happy to get drawn into this controversy. It has declined earlier to get into the question whether a grand temple of Lord Ram stood at this particular spot. It does not allow its decisions to be affected by extraneous considerations, ruling purely on merit, without fear or favour. However, it is not unmindful of the electoral calendar, of how the decision it would render in this case would impact public affairs. It is unlikely to dispose of this matter before the general election. Although the gathering at Ayodhya fizzled out, the Court may not have been happy to observe what appeared to some as an effort to get it to hurry things up a bit.