When Justice Nazeer disagreed with the BJP in the triple talaq and an Ayodhya-related case

The President of India appointed S Justice Abdul Nazeer as the Governor of Andhra Pradesh. Since then a particular ecosystem (read Left) has gone on link the appointment with the verdict in the Ram Mandir case passed by a Bench of the Supreme Court of which Justice Nazeer was part of.

Many indicated that the Ram Mandir verdict was devoid of any merit and judges like Justice Nazeer had delivered the judgment in hope of something in return.

"Willing to twist your own terms? Reward guaranteed..... Gogoi-Rajya Sabha member and relief from sexual harassment charges. Ashok Bhushan-Chairman NCLAT. Abdul Nazeer-Governor. Bobde-wait listed. D Y Chandrachud.....," Nagendar Sharma, who describes himself as a wannabe journalist, lawyer and failed advisor wrote on Twitter.

Many more handles shared images of the five judges who delivered the Ram Mandir verdict. An article in OpIndia says that the motive behind such misleading messaging is to convince the people that the Ayodhya verdict was in some way fixed.

Union Law Minister Karen Rijiju did not take things lying down and decided to hit back at this particular ecosystem.

"The Whole Eco-system is once again in full swing on the appointment of a Governor.

They should better understand that, they can no more treat India as their personal fiefdom. Now, India will be guided by the people of India as per the provisions of the Constitution of India," he wrote on Twitter.

"These people are desperate because their agenda & flawed ideology have been rejected by the people of India. Nation won't tolerate such egotistical people. Remember, it's #NewIndia," he said in another tweet.

The unfair criticism of Justice S Abdul Nazeer:

In 1994, the Supreme Court while dealing with the Ismail Faruqi case had said. " a Mosque is not an essential part of the the practice of religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in the open."

Justice Nazeer had on September 27 2018 noted that the said observation influenced the verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ayodhya land dispute case of 2010.

The Allahabad High Court had split 2.77 acres of land belonging to the Ram Janmabhoomi between Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

While Justice Nazeer had sought an interpretation, then Chief Justice of India Dipak Mishra and Ashok Bhushan delivered the majority verdict 2:1. They said that the 1994 observations were in relation only with the Ismail Faruqi case and had no bearing on the Allahabad High Court verdict.

Justice Nazeer had framed four questions in his dissenting verdict in 2018:

• Whether in the light of Shirur Mutt and other aforementioned cases, an essential practice can be decided without a detailed examination of the beliefs, tenets and practice of the faith in question?
• Whether the test for determining the essential practice is both essentiality and integrality?
• Does Article 25, only protect beliefs and practices othe f particular significance of a faith or all practices regarded by the faith as essential?
• Do Articles 15, 25 and 26 (read with Article 14) allow the comparative significance of faiths to be undertaken?

This clearly shows that the criticism of Justice Nazeer is unfair. From his dissenting verdict it is very clear that he did not favour the line that the BJP government had taken in this case in 2018.

Another example:

While many are trying to say it is his favouring of the BJP that got him the post in the Andhra Pradesh Raj Bhavan, here is another example of why that is not the case.

The BJP government was insistent on criminalising triple talaq.

However it was justice Nazeer who gave the dissenting verdict in that case. In his dissenting view against the criminalisation of triple talaq, Justice Nazeer had said:

• Triple Talaq is integral to Islam in India and part of personal law
• It is a practice which had prevailed for a long time
• Triple Talaq does not violate Articles 14, 15 (Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth) and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) which are sanctions against state action.

In this case, then Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Kehar was the other judge who gave the dissenting view. Both had noted that courts cannot interfere in personal laws. They directed the Centre to formulate a law in this regard.