Supreme Court denies Justice

What right, power and jurisdiction has the Apex court of a secular state to direct the government to construct the house of worship of any community? In doing so, the Supreme Court has gone beyond deciding the issue of title in a civil suit- it had descended into the Hall of a communal conflict and stamped a spot on its reputation as it did in the Habeas Corpus case of 1976, and some others.

“No matter whether the Constitution follows the flag or not, the Supreme Court follows the election returns”. This bon mot was composed by Finley, Peter Dinne the gifted Illinois humourist in the classic “Mr Dooley’s Opinions: The Supreme Court Decisions. It expressed the distrust with which the decisions of the highest court are regarded in the wake of change of regime representing a change of political environment.

The writer quoted it in an article on the Kissa Kursi Ka case in which the Supreme Court performed a somersault on its previous rulings after Indira Gandhi returned to power in January 1980. It was published when Sanjay Gandhi was alive. The upright police official, N.K. Singh’s plea for intervention was rejected by the court despite the fact that the accused has merged with the state. This is precisely the situation in the Babri Masjid case today.

A common reaction to the Supreme Court’s agreeable judgment in the Babri Masjid case delivered on November 9, 2019, is that it reflected the majoritarian climate fostered by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and it’s seeds the Bhartiya Janta Party(BJP) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP). This makes Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad statement in court on January 24, 1992, when he was charged with sedition, very relevant. It was not a statement in defence but in defiance. He said,” next to battlefield it is in the courtrooms that some of the greatest act of injustice in the history of the world have taken place.”