Averting polarisation: on SC pushing back Ayodhya verdict

 

 

 

Averting polarisation: on SC pushing back Ayodhya verdict

MORE-IN
Ayodhya Verdict
The Supreme Court has judiciously pushed back the timeline for a verdict on Ayodhya
By declining(अन्त होनेवाला/अस्वीकृत करना) to fix until January 2019 a date for hearing the Ayodhya case, the Supreme Court has judiciously(विवेकपूर्ण तरीके से) diminished the possibility(कम हो गई) of a final verdict(फैसला) before the next Lok Sabha election. The adjournment(स्थगन/कार्यस्थगन) is both welcome and necessary, as it pushes back the prospect(संभावना/आशा) of any judgment in the run-up to the polls. It hardly needs reiteration(दोहराना/पुनरावृत्ति) that regardless of which way it goes, any verdict would polarise(फूट डालना/ध्रुवीकरण) the nation. When a three-judge Bench refused(अस्वीकृत) to refer some questions of law in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute(विवाद/विचार) to a seven-member Bench last month, it raised(उठाया) the prospects of an early final hearing in the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s judgment of 2010 in the main title suit. The court had then set October 29, 2018, for the next hearing. This had raised the hopes of aggressive(आक्रामक/क्रोधी) proponents(समर्थकों/प्रेमी) of Hindutva who have been expecting(उम्मीद/अपेक्षा करना) a favourable verdict for the construction(निर्माण/गठन) of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. While it is true that courts should not tailor(लगा देना) their timelines to election dates, it is equally important that religious(धार्मिक) sentiments(भावनाएं) are not stoked and exploited(शोषण किया )during(दौरान) election season. The decision of a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi to put off even the exercise of fixing a date for the final hearing(सुनवाई) is quite pragmatic(व्यावहारिक/हस्‍तक्षेप करने वाला). In the eyes of the law, this may be just a title dispute. However, given the divisive(विभाजनकारी/बांटनेवाला) effect the Ram temple movement(गति/आंदोलन) has had on the country’s politics and history, it would be unwise(अज्ञानी/बेवक़ूफ़) to equate(समान मनाना) this with any other judicial matter that can come up for disposal(निपटान/व्यवस्था) in due course.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during a BJP Sikh Samaj Sammelan in Lucknow on October 29, 2018.
Ayodhya dispute: All alternatives need to be explored, says Yogi Adityanath

A word of caution is in order. The postponement of the hearing does not preclude(रोकना/अलग करना) an aggressive campaign(अभियान) by those upset(परेशान) and impatient(बेताब/अधीर/उत्सुक) about what they see as a delay in achieving(प्राप्त करना) their objective(उद्देश्य) of building a temple at the disputed site. Already there are voices clamouring(शोर/हलचल), most imprudently(अजीब तरह/विवेकहीनता से), for an ordinance(अध्यादेश) to enable(सक्षम/योग्य बनाना) the construction of a temple. These must be resisted(विरोध/रोकना), and the judiciary must be vigilant(जागरूक/चौकन्ना ) and resourceful(साधन-संपन्न) in ensuring that the dispute remains(बनी हुई है/बाकी है) within its jurisdiction. A solution, unless judicially driven, is unlikely to command constitutional(संवैधानिक) legitimacy(वैधता). Twenty four years ago the Supreme Court had resolutely(सख्ती) refused to answer a controversial(विवादास्पद) Presidential reference(संदर्भ/निर्देश) on whether a temple pre-existed the demolished(ध्वस्त/ढाना) masjid. It had restored the title suit and made it clear that the government is only a receiver of the land it had acquired(प्राप्त/अर्जित) in Ayodhya; and that it holds the land in trust, only to be handed over to the party that succeeds in the suit. This recourse(सहारा/आश्रय) to a judicial remedy(उपाय ) should not be circumvented(बिगाड़ना/धोखा देना). Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his Independence Day address in 2014, had called for a 10-year moratorium(प्रतिबंध/रोकथाम) on communal(सार्वजनिक/सामुदायिक) and sectarian(सांप्रदायिक) issues( मुद्दों।). As long as he sticks to the spirit behind this appeal, it will not be legitimate(कानूनी/उचित/वैध) for anyone to demand a pre-emptive(रिक्तिपूर्व) law in favour of a temple.

 

 

Important Vocabulary

1.Declining(अन्त होनेवाला/अस्वीकृत करना)
Synonyms: deny, dismiss, refuse, reject, abjure
Antonyms: accept, allow, approve, grant, sanction

2.Judiciously(विवेकपूर्ण तरीके से)
Synonyms: accordingly, aptly, duly, judiciously, justly
Antonyms: unsuitably, badly, improperly, inappropriately

3.Reiteration(दोहराना/पुनरावृत्ति
Synonyms: restatement, recapitulation, redundancy, repeat

4.Prospect(संभावना/आशा)
Synonyms: anticipation, chance, expectation, forecast, future
Antonyms: hopelessness, impossibility, unlikelihood

5.Refused(अस्वीकृत)
Synonyms: banned, blocked, denied, disavowed, dismissed
Antonyms: allowed, permitted, consented to

6.Proponents(समर्थकों/प्रेमी
Synonyms: advocate, backer, defender, enthusiast, exponent
Antonyms: antagonist, detractor, enemy, opponent, opposition

7.Aggressive(आक्रामक/क्रोधी
Synonyms: combative, contentious, destructive, intrusive, threatening
Antonyms: calm, complaisant, easy-going, laid-back

8.Dispute(विवाद/विचार)
Synonyms: bickering, brawl, conflict, controversy, debate
Antonyms: accord, agreement, calm, concord, concurrence

9.Pragmatic(व्यावहारिक/हस्‍तक्षेप करने वाला).
Synonyms: businesslike, down-to-earth, efficient, hardheaded, logical
Antonyms: excited, impractical, inefficient, irrational, unrealistic

10.Unwise(अज्ञानी/बेवक़ूफ़
Synonyms: foolhardy, foolish, ill-advised, ill-considered, imprudent, inappropriate
Antonyms: careful, cautious, discreet, prudent, sensible

11.Disposal(निपटान/व्यवस्था
Synonyms: clearance, demolition, destruction, disposition, dumping
Antonyms: building, construction, beginning, hold, keeping

12.Circumvented(बिगाड़ना/धोखा देना)
Synonyms: avoid, bypass, deceive, evade, prevent
Antonyms: aid, assist, encourage, face, help

13.Preclude(रोकना/अलग करना)
Synonyms: avert, cease, deter, exclude, forestall
Antonyms: add, advance, aid, allow, assist

14.Impatient(बेताब/अधीर/उत्सुक)
Synonyms: anxious, eager, irritable, keen, restless
Antonyms: happy, unconcerned, unenthusiastic, controlled, easy-going

15.Objective(उद्देश्य)
Synonyms: detached, disinterested, dispassionate, equitable, evenhanded
Antonyms: biased, interested, involved, partial, passionate

16.Imprudently(अजीब तरह/विवेकहीनता से),
Synonyms: foolishly, inadvisedly, indiscreetly, rashly

17.Resisted(विरोध/रोकना),
Synonyms: abide, combat, confront, continue, curb
Antonyms: OK, accept, aid, allow, assist

18.Recourse(सहारा/आश्रय)
Synonyms: remedy, aid, appeal, choice, expediency
Antonyms: blockage, hindrance, injury, obstruction, permanent

19.Moratorium(प्रतिबंध/रोकथाम)
Synonyms: ban, delay, freeze, halt, pause
Antonyms: continuation, continuance

20.Resolutely(सख्ती)
Synonyms: bravely, decisively, firmly, steadfastly, obstinately

 

 

Credit To The Hindu News Paper

The Supreme Court has judiciously pushed back the timeline for a verdict on Ayodhya
By declining to fix until January 2019 a date for hearing the Ayodhya case, the Supreme Court has judiciously diminished the possibility of a final verdict before the next Lok Sabha election. The adjournment is both welcome and necessary, as it pushes back the prospect of any judgment in the run-up to the polls. It hardly needs reiteration that regardless of which way it goes, any verdict would polarise the nation. When a three-judge Bench refused to refer some questions of law in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute to a seven-member Bench last month, it raised the prospects of an early final hearing in the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s judgment of 2010 in the main title suit. The court had then set October 29, 2018, for the next hearing. This had raised the hopes of aggressive proponents of Hindutva who have been expecting a favourable verdict for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. While it is true that courts should not tailor their timelines to election dates, it is equally important that religious sentiments are not stoked and exploited during election season. The decision of a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi to put off even the exercise of fixing a date for the final hearing is quite pragmatic. In the eyes of the law, this may be just a title dispute. However, given the divisive effect the Ram temple movement has had on the country’s politics and history, it would be unwise to equate this with any other judicial matter that can come up for disposal in due course.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath during a BJP Sikh Samaj Sammelan in Lucknow on October 29, 2018.
Ayodhya dispute: All alternatives need to be explored, says Yogi Adityanath

A word of caution is in order. The postponement of the hearing does not preclude an aggressive campaign by those upset and impatient about what they see as a delay in achieving their objective of building a temple at the disputed site. Already there are voices clamouring, most imprudently, for an ordinance to enable the construction of a temple. These must be resisted, and the judiciary must be vigilant and resourceful in ensuring that the dispute remains within its jurisdiction. A solution, unless judicially driven, is unlikely to command constitutional legitimacy. Twenty four years ago the Supreme Court had resolutely refused to answer a controversial Presidential reference on whether a temple pre-existed the demolished masjid. It had restored the title suit and made it clear that the government is only a receiver of the land it had acquired in Ayodhya; and that it holds the land in trust, only to be handed over to the party that succeeds in the suit. This recourse to a judicial remedy should not be circumvented. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his Independence Day address in 2014, had called for a 10-year moratorium on communal and sectarian issues. As long as he sticks to the spirit behind this appeal, it will not be legitimate for anyone to demand a pre-emptive law in favour of a temple.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email