Justice Rohinton Nariman remembers the hurt to Secularism in the fateful Babri Masjid Issue.

Retired Supreme Court Judge Justice Rohinton Nariman, recently in his speech on ‘Secularism and the Indian Constitution’, in the First Justice AM Ahmadi Memorial Lecture, recalled the injustice done in the Babri Masjid demolition. While he wholeheartedly appreciated the Place of Worship Act 1991, he also discouraged the Supreme Court from deviating from the spirit of Secularism ever again for the sake of reverence to the making of the Indian Constitution.

Justice Nariman deeply introspects the blunders against secularism by the courts and the Indian government

Former Supreme Court Judge Justice Nariman discussed how political power figures of the Bhartiya Janata Party accused of being instrumental in the tragic demolition of Babri Masjid were given an acquittal by the trial court despite the intervention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Justice Rohinton got a chance to pass orders under Article 142 for the trial in 2017, which otherwise had been dormant for about 25 years. He added that the state of affairs in the country was in a dire strait for the special CBI judge that acquitted all the accused persons, was designated as a Deputy Lokayukta of the State of Uttar Pradesh, after retirement. On September 2020, a special court in Lucknow acquitted the former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani, former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh Kalyan Singh, BJP leaders Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti regarding the incident of Babri Masjid demolition.

Justice Nariman reflects upon the significance of The Places of Worship Act 1991 

Justice Nariman called the judgment on Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid a travesty of justice to secularism. He said that yet, he hails a part of the judgment which included 5 pages by the Constitution Bench affirming ‘The Places of Worship Act 1991′, that creates a silver lining on the verdict. He added that these five pages were a declaration of law upon Secularism and should be read out before each District Court and High Court to protect mosques and other religious structures from being unlawfully questioned ever again. Such a step would greatly benefit the courts in the shaping up and effective implementation of the Places of Worship Act 1991.

The state enforced its constitutional commitment and obligation to cherish and uphold the equality of all religions by nurturing the secular nature of the Indian Constitution, which is also its basic feature as per the landmark judgement on S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). The Places of Worship Act 1991, was a beautiful legal intervention that preserved non-retrogression as an essential constituent of secularism.

The former Supreme Court judge also criticized the Presidential reference to the Supreme Court to determine whether there was a hindu temple underneath the mosque during the pendency of the case. While referring to the Report of Archeological Survey of 2003, he further explained that the ASI found artifacts belonging to different groups such as Shivaite, Buddhist, and Jain. However, it is integral to note that an important finding was also made by the Supreme Court of India that there was no Ram Temple under the structure of Babri Masjid.