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.
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.
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.
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.
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.