• search
For Quick Alerts
ALLOW NOTIFICATIONS  
For Daily Alerts

Ayodhya Case: What happens if both Hindus and Muslims are unhappy with the verdict

|

New Delhi, Oct 16: The verdict in the Ayodhya Case could be delivered in the next one month. None of the parties are willing to settle for anything less and attempts to mediate the dispute have failed on several occasions.

The Allahabad High Court in 2010 in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya Case: What happens if both Hindus and Muslims are unhappy with the verdict

However none of the parties were happy with the verdict and preferred an appeal in the Supreme Court. The question is what if the Supreme Court delivers a similar verdict. This would once again mean that none of the parties would be content with it.

Ayodhya case: 1528 to 2019, a timeline

Then the ball would be in the government's court. The government would then have the option to take the ordinance route and settle the matter once and for all.

The government can enact an ordinance of ownership of a 2.77 acre plot of land in Ayodhya, which is considered by many to be the birth place of Lord Ram.

The government can pass a law and then hand over the land to an eminent body of religious leaders, especially those versed in Agama Sastra, with a direction to build the Ram Temple.

Before getting into this, let us examine what the Allahabad High Court had said in this case. The HC had split ownership of the site, three ways with the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and For Ram Lalla getting a third each. There were appeals filed and have been pending before the Supreme Court since the past seven years.

The question is whether the BJP led NDA government can take the ordinance route and ensure that the temple is built. Can this be done at this stage.

Ayodhya: Before the wrap, heated exchanges in Supreme Court

Advocate, K N Phanindra tells OneIndia that there is nothing that prevents the government from taking the ordinance route. What the government needs to do is take out the fundamental basis. The ratio laid down by the court and the fundamental basis or foundation needs to be taken out when an ordinance is passed, he also adds.

He further adds that if an ordinance is passed, then the verdict of the Supreme Court virtually becomes infructuous. He however adds that such an ordinance can be challenged in the court.

Subramanian Swamy while stating that the government has the Constitutional right to take the ordinance route, also suggested that the existing claimants can be duly compensated for their loss of their claim on the title of the land.

Ayodhya case: What if verdict is not delivered by November 17 2019

However enacting an ordinance is not an easy matter. Firstly it cannot be done, when the legislature is in session. Secondly the circumstances under which the ordinance is promulgated mattes. Article 123 of the Indian Constitution says that if at any time, except when both Houses of Parliament are in session, the President is satisfied that the circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action, he may promulgate such an ordinance as the circumstances appear him to require.

For Daily Alerts
Get Instant News Updates
Enable
x
Notification Settings X
Time Settings
Done
Clear Notification X
Do you want to clear all the notifications from your inbox?
Settings X
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes cookies from third party social media websites and ad networks. Such third party cookies may track your use on Oneindia sites for better rendering. Our partners use cookies to ensure we show you advertising that is relevant to you. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on Oneindia website. However, you can change your cookie settings at any time. Learn more