19 October, 2010
15 October, 2010
AP Samachar - 15 October 2010
Make voting easier
October 15, 2010 8:16:55 PM
Arindam Chaudhuri
The Pioneer
October 15, 2010 8:16:55 PM
Arindam Chaudhuri
It is time the Government allowed voting through mobile phone and Internet to ensure a high voter ‘turnout’. Further, voters should be given the choice to vote for ‘None of the above'. That will redefine democracy and give us a Government by the people
Last December, the State Assembly of Gujarat passed a Bill to make voting mandatory — that Bill is still to see a nod from the Governor. Revisiting the issue, Mr LK Advani and Mr Narendra Modi both recently echoed the viewpoint again and asked the legislation to make voting compulsory in the State, especially after a low turnout rate in the recent civic elections. On an average, the voter turnout rate in Gujarat has been around 50 per cent, while a month back Bihar saw a turnout rate of 43-45 per cent. The recent developments with respect to compulsory voting remind me of an article that I wrote way back in 2007 — on allowing voting through SMS. Although I am not in favour of mandatory voting in a democracy as that is not logical, what is essential is a larger engagement of the electorate, which has been diminishing by the day. In fact, this larger engagement need not be just for a few constituencies, but it should be applicable for the whole nation.
Obviously, there is practically no better way to rationalise the electoral process than by making the electorate wider with a singular objective of universal suffrage. With the current voter turnout rates hardly touching the 50 per cent mark these days, the election results, in essence, fail to reflect the actual mandate, as a major proportion of the electorate chooses not to exercise their franchise. And the most unfortunate part is that a majority of people who abstain from voting are the youth and the educated class. They feel completely disengaged from the election process because of the process itself — which till recently was fraught with rigging and other forms of malpractices — the quality of candidates, and the political system as a whole.
But then, what most do not realise is that their decision not to vote not only leads to the selection of an incapable person (who is a criminal 25 per cent of the time), but for that matter, also questions the duties attached to our fundamental rights. This also reminds me of those horror years when India saw the repercussions of low voter turnout rate — where the Government lasted for few days to few weeks (twice in 1996 and then in 1998), costing the national exchequer a massive amount. The situation has been so bad that the last 13 general elections have seen an average turnout rate of 59.63 per cent (least being 33 per cent and maximum being 61.97 per cent).
The issue of a larger engagement becomes more pertinent as conducting of elections are a huge expense to the nation. As per the official reports, India invested a staggering sum of `100 billion — or `10,000 crore — in the last general election. A trend analysis on the expenditure over the last 30 years indicates that every year the expenditures on Lok Sabha election increase by nothing less than 40-45 per cent. Over and above the official expenditure, the political parties also indulge in huge expenditures in their respective campaigns to lure voters. In 2004, in the much hyped ‘India Shining’ campaign, the BJP had frittered over `75-100 crore, while the last election saw Congress and BJP spending more than `250 crore each.
Moreover, the idea of a larger engagement in voting is not discreet but is well present across the world. Countries like Australia, Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Cyprus, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, Fiji, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Turkey, Uruguay et al, witness an average of 90-95 per cent voting, thus bringing to power those Governments that are truly people’s representatives — all thanks to the systems they practice.
As I wrote back in 2007, apart from making voting broad-based, it is important to make it accessible — more mobile-polling booths and voting through mobiles and Internet could ensure a high voter turnout. And further, along with this, there should be the final choice that many in India have been fighting for: The choice to vote for ‘None of the Above’. Democracy might take a new form then. We might have a result that looks like — ‘Congress’ 24 per cent, ‘BJP’ 24 per cent, ‘Others’ one per cent and ‘None of the Above’ 51 per cent.
The seats in every Parliament should also be distributed in the ratio of votes polled as it should be in a true democracy. While democracy then will replace the existing demon-ocracy in India, politicians will also know that the only way to stay in power is by working for the benefit of the people. And they will start doing that, instead of indulging in criminal activities. And whenever there is a new scam, mobile companies can make some more money by having a snap opinion poll asking voters to comment on whether they still want the Government in power. Such opinion polls cannot go wrong, nor can they be debated. We might finally end up getting Governments truly for the people, by the people and of the people.
-- The writer is a management guru and Editor, The Sunday Indian.
The Pioneer
14 October, 2010
AP Samachar - 14 October 2010
Not all in J&K are Kashmiris
The Pioneer
The Hindu
October 14, 2010 9:00:36 PM
G Parthasarathy
Let us not forget 45 per cent of the people of Jammu & Kashmir are Dogras, Punjabis, Paharis, Bakarwals, Gujjars, Buddhists and Shias
There has been a basic flaw in New Delhi’s approach to an ‘internal dialogue’ with people in the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual and multi-religious State of Jammu & Kashmir. This ‘internal dialogue’ has been almost exclusively with the leadership of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference based in the Kashmir Valley. This, despite the fact that roughly 45 per cent of the people of Jammu & Kashmir are not ‘Kashmiris’ who live in the Kashmir Valley, but are Dogras, Punjabis, Paharis, Bakarwals, Gujjars, Buddhist Ladakhis and Balti Shias in Kargil.
Paradoxically, the Kashmir Valley where one now hears calls for ‘azadi’ was ruled ruthlessly for over 700 years by Mongols, Afghans, Mughals, Sikhs and Dogras before people experienced democracy and freedom under India’s Constitution. Moreover, while communal harmony has prevailed in the multi-religious Jammu and Ladakh regions, it is in the Kashmir Valley alone, which boasts of a proud history of secular ‘Kashmiriyat’, that 4,00,000 members of the minority community of Pandits have been forced to flee their homes by a Pakistan-sponsored jihad backed indirectly by the All-Party Hurriyat Conference.
The Charter of the All-Party Hurriyat Conference explicitly proclaims its aim as “the build-up of a society based on Islamic values” in keeping with “the Muslim majority character of the State”. The Hurriyat’s primary objective is described as a “struggle to secure for the people of Jammu & Kashmir the exercise of the right of self determination in accordance with the UN Charter and the resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council. However, the exercise of the right of self-determination shall also include the right to independence.”
Every major outfit in the Hurriyat, which has splintered and split periodically, is associated with terrorist groups across the Line of Control, ranging from Al Umar Mujahideen, which backs the ‘moderate’ Mirwaiz Umer Farooq, to Hizb-ul Mujahideen of the ‘radical’ Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Pakistan’s military leadership in Rawalpindi decides who leads the Hurriyat Conference. Mirwaiz Umer Farooq took on the leadership when President Pervez Musharraf was daggers drawn with Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s mentor, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, the Amir of Pakistan’s Jamat-e-Islami. Now that Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is at peace with the Jamat-e-Islami, Mirwaiz Umer Farooq plays second fiddle to Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The puppets may be in the Valley, but the puppeteers are in Rawalpindi.
With the PDP emerging as a viable alternative to the National Conference as a mainstream party, both organisations have sought to match the rhetoric of the Pakistan-backed separatists by demanding a return to the position that prevailed in 1953 before the provisions of the Constitution of India were made applicable to the State. Some of our misguided ‘liberals’ advocate the conceding of ‘maximum autonomy’.
They forget that what is being asked for by a section of the people of the State, exclusively from the Valley, with little or no support from people in the Jammu and Ladakh regions, is a framework wherein the permit system for the entry of people from other parts of India into Jammu & Kashmir could be revived, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Election Commission and the Auditor and Comptroller-General of India will no longer extend to the State and duties could be imposed on goods imported into Jammu & Kashmir from the rest of the country.
If ‘maximum autonomy’ were to be granted, Jammu & Kashmir would become the only part of the country where the provisions of Articles 356 and 357 of the Constitution would not be applicable. The Governor would be appointed not by the Union Government but by the State Legislature. Just before the Mirza Afzal Beg-G Parthasarathi Accord was signed on November 13, 1974, Sheikh Abdullah told Mrs Indira Gandhi’s representative: “I hope I have made it clear to you that I can assume office only on the basis of the position as it existed in 1953.” Mrs Gandhi merely agreed to discuss this with Sheikh Abdullah, who assumed office soon thereafter.
The recent demonstrations in parts of the Kashmir Valley have had no resonance elsewhere in the State. They are being orchestrated to pick up momentum and reach full throttle when US President Barack Obama is in India. The salient demand has been the revocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, strangely espoused vigorously at a time when the Army is no longer deployed for internal security anywhere in the Valley.
The Hurriyat leaders and their mentors across the LoC know that with the Army out of the security equation, the writ of the Indian state can be challenged with impunity. The sort of autonomy being demanded by the Hurriyat is seen in Jammu and Ladakh as an instrument to achieve permanent hegemony of the Valley population and fulfil the Hurriyat’s aspirations for a “society based on Islamic values”. Any initiative to reach out to people across Jammu & Kashmir has to be based on securing a consensus in all regions of the State.
While demanding ‘azadi’ for ‘Kashmiris’, the Hurriyat has been remarkably reticent of what is happening in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Surely those demanding ‘azadi’ should be asked whether their espousal of ‘azadi’ also covers the people of Gilgit and Baltistan. The Resolution passed by the European Parliament on May 24, 2007, slams the domination of officials appointed by Islamabad in the affairs of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and notes that the 1974 PoK Constitution “forbids any political activity that is not in accordance with the doctrine of Jammu & Kashmir as part of Pakistan”.
The European Parliament Resolution further notes that while the “Gilgit- Baltistan region enjoys no form of democratic representation whatsoever”, the State of “Jammu & Kashmir (administered by India) enjoys a unique status under Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, granting it greater autonomy than other States of the Indian Union”. India needs to drive home these facts aggressively to people in the Kashmir Valley and to the international community, rather than being continually defensive about deliberately engineered violence.
The broad understanding reached in ‘back channel’ discussions between India and Pakistan between 2005 and 2007 reportedly envisaged an end to cross-border terrorism and involved equivalent autonomy on both sides of the LoC with it no longer being a barrier for the free movement of goods, services, investment and people. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh should inform Parliament and the people of India about the contours of what transpired in these back channel discussions. Excessive secrecy on such a sensitive issue rarely serves the national interest.
The Pioneer
The Hindu
Swatantra Vaartha
13 October, 2010
11 October, 2010
AP Samachar - 11 October 2010
Stoking the embers
October 11, 2010 8:48:09 PM
The Pioneer
October 11, 2010 8:48:09 PM
Balbir Punj
Rahul Gandhi is clearly seeking to play the tattered and torn communal card by equating the RSS to SIMI
Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi’s crass remarks painting the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Students’ Islamic Movement of India with the same brush has not come as a surprise to those who know the Congress’s history and the record of the dynasty since independence. Both are replete with numerous instances when national interests were sacrificed for short-term political gains.
India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, sought to put the RSS in the dock for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and banned the organisation. It didn’t take long for the fiction to crumble and the ban was lifted when the courts found that the RSS had nothing to do with the assassination. After the nation was shaken by the Chinese invasion of 1962, Nehru invited the RSS to participate in the 1963 Republic Day parade to revive the drooping spirits of the people. We need not go into who was responsible for the policies that enabled the PLA to put an unprepared and ineptly-led Indian Army on the defensive.
The anti-RSS charade was next taken up by Mrs Indira Gandhi. She sought to rescue herself from the growing opposition to her by dubbing the RSS and and the legendary Jayaprakash Narayan as “enemies of the country”. This led her down the path of taking away the right to life and liberty of the citizens. The fascist streak in the Congress’s family leadership was out in the open. So the people swept Mrs Indira Gandhi out of power in the 1977 general election. That verdict clearly sent a message to her about the credentials of the RSS.
Rajiv Gandhi, as Prime Minister, sought to win over the fundamentalist section of the Muslim community by overturning the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Shah Bano case. To placate Hindus, he unlocked the gates of the Babri Masjid/Ramjanmabhoomi structure and allowed shilanyas at the site hoping to steal a march on the RSS. But lacking the discipline, history and dedication of the RSS, he ended up as a suspect in the eyes of both Hindus and Muslims.
Mr Rahul Gandhi putting the RSS and SIMI on the same page has to be seen against this backdrop. The Students’ Islamic Movement of India has remained banned for the last several years for proven anti-national activities and for waging war against the Indian state. Its involvement in terrorism, its recruiting young Muslims for terror-training in Pakistan and spreading venomous propaganda against India are well known. It can’t be that Mr Rahul Gandhi is unaware that SIMI is funded and controlled by the ISI. His statement, therefore, is meant to please malcontents and ensure that his party does not lose the competitive game of communal politics which the likes of Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav are playing in the wake of the Ayodhya verdict.
After the Ayodhya verdict, it seemed that the only people troubled by the likely settlement of the dispute were our traditional Left intellectuals. Orphaned since the demise of the Soviet Union, they continue with their old agenda of pandering to Muslim separatism. They forget that even if the case goes to the Supreme Court and there is a final verdict, the dispute would still have to be settled through negotiations. Obviously, it is impossible for a new mosque to come up at the very spot where the Babri Masjid stood prior to December 6, 1992.
Those who now accuse the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court of positing “faith above law” are the very people who have over the decades encouraged Muslim community leaders to resist any attempt at a negotiated settlement and keep the issue alive in the name of their peculiar brand of ‘secularism’. They have made the issue one of a dispute between Hindus and Muslims. If the dispute was one of Hindus objecting to a mosque, how is it that hundreds of mosques have come up all over the country ever since India achieved independence?
While Pakistan was declared an Islamic state, India did not opt to be a Hindu state. At no time in the history of the country did a Hindu king consider himself to be the ruler of a Hindu kingdom. Everyone thrown out of their homeland, like the Parsis and the Jews, found a refuge in India. Muslims who came to coastal India as traders and artisans much before the waves of invasions in the north were welcomed and given land to build mosques.
So how has this particular site at Ayodhya become a matter of dispute? The post-verdict statement issued by the Left-wing intellectuals, who never shed a tear when lakhs of Pandits were driven out of their homes in the Kashmir Valley, reflects their venomous view. In their outburst, they have even contradicted themselves. At one point they have attacked the verdict for ignoring the ASI’s findings; at another they have accused the same ASI of “fabricating” evidence to support the view that a temple existed at the site. They have objected to the court taking into account faith, insisting law should be the only determinant.
The faith of the Hindus that the place where the Babri Masjid stood was the birthplace of Sri Ram is offensive to these Left-wing intellectuals. But the faith of the Muslims who say they cannot give up their claim on the site — their lawyer says sharia’h does not allow it — is acceptable to them.
The question whether the Indian identity is determined by a self-sacrificing prince who was willing to give up his throne or an invader from Central Asia is what the dispute boils down to. The Left-wing intellectuals and some frustrated politicians are determined to stoke the embers of the Ayodhya dispute. It is in this context that Mr Rahul Gandhi has sought to equate the RSS with SIMI. Mrs Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi had to pay a heavy political price for maligning the RSS. Mr Rahul Gandhi would do well to learn from their folly.
-- punjbalbir@gmail.com
for more articles click below links
The Pioneer
- Stoking the embers
- Descent into chaos
- Prayers, justice and peace
- Faith is timeless
- Looking ahead into the future
06 October, 2010
05 October, 2010
AP Samachar - 5 October 2010
The Pioneer
Deccan Chronicle
Deccan Chronicle
30 September, 2010
AP Samachar - 30 September 2010
Sadhu Santu ke Resolution
Sarsanghachalak P.P.Mohanji's Statement
Statement of Sarsanghachalak ma. Mohanrao Bhagwat on the Allahabad High Court Judgement on Ayodhya
Through today's verdict the Allahabad High Court has acknowledged and ratified the age-old faith of crores of people of Bharat in Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram and his Janm Bhumi. There for I welcome and congratulate the honourable Justices who delivered it. I also congratulate the battery of lawyers who were involved in this legal battle, all the saints who were leading the Ram Janm Bhumi movement and all the others including the people of the country who participated in it in a big way. I offer my respectful homage to the sacred and inspiring memory of all those Karsevaks like Kothari brothers who have laid down their lives in the movement for reestablishing that faith.
Building of the Ram temple signifies the identity, honour, independence and valour of our country. Sri Ram is the epitome of the eternal, inclusive, caring and tolerant culture of our Bharat. The movement for Ram Temple is not a reactionary one, nor is it against any particular community.
Hence this verdict, that facilitates building of a magnificent temple for Maryada Purushottam Ram, should not be seen by the society as a victory to any group or defeat to the other. Our joy and happiness should find expression in a controlled, peaceful manner within the limits of law and Constitution; uncalled for provocations must be avoided. This is an excellent opportunity to rise above all the past experiences in the spirit of our tolerant and inclusive national culture and strive to organise our diverse, multiple-lingual and multiple-religious society into a united, disciplined and conflict-free one inspired by a grand and sacred vision.
Hence I take this opportunity to heartily and affectionately call upon all our countrymen including the Muslims to forget all the ill-will and hard feelings borne out of the conflicts of the past decades and welcome the verdict of the judiciary, thus becoming active collaborators in organising necessary constitutional and practical means for building the magnificent temple for Maryadaurushottam Sri Ram.
Ayodhya Verdict Full Text
BRIEF SUMMARY
Subject matter of the decided cases OOS No. 1 of 1989 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahur
Ahmad and 8 others, OOS No. 3 of 1989 Nirmohi Aakhada etc. Vs.
Baboo Priya Dutt Ram and others, OOS No. 4 of 1989 Sunni
central Board of Waqfs U.P. Lucknow and others Vs. Gopal Singh
Visharad and others and O.O.S.No. 5 of 1989 Bhagwan Sri Ram
Virajman at Ayodhya and others Vs. Rajendra Singh and others
were filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Faizabad. Thereafter on
the request of State of U.P. the cases were transferred to this Court
and Hon'ble the Chief Justice constituted special Bench.
Government of India decided to acquire all area of the
disputed property and the suits were abated. Thereafter the apex
court directed this Court to decide the case as per judgement in
Dr.M. Ismail Faruqui and others Vs. Union of India and others
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 360.
OOS No. 4 of 1989 (Reg. Suit No.12-61)
The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P., Lucknow & others
Versus
Gopal Singh Visharad and others
The instant suit has been filed for declaration in the year 1961
and thereafter in the year 1995 through amendment relief for
possession was added.
Plaint case in brief is that about 443 years ago Babur built a
mosque at Ayodhya and also granted cash grant from royal treasury
for maintenance of Babri Mosque. It was damaged in the year 1934
during communal riots and thereafter on 23.12.1949 large crowd of
Hindus desecrated the mosque by placing idols inside the mosque.
The disputed property was attached under Section 145 Cr.P.C.and
thereafter the suit was filed for declaration and for delivery of
possession beyond the period of limitation.
On behalf of the defendants separate written statements were filed alleging that structure is not a mosque and it was constructed
after demolishing the temple against the tenets of Islam. The A.S.I.
report was obtained which proved the earlier construction of
religious nature.
On the basis of the report of the Archeological Survey of
India massive structure of religious nature is required to be
maintained as national monument under the Ancient Monument
Archeological Site and Remains Act, 1958. The Apex Court in
Rajiv Mankotia Vs. Secretary to the President of India and
others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court page 2766 at para 21 directed
the Government of India to maintain such national monuments.
Thus, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to
comply with the provisions of Act No. 24 of 1958 and ensure to
maintain the dignity and cultural heritage of this country .
On behalf of some of the defendants, it was alleged that not
only in the outer courtyard but also in the inner courtyard people
used to worship the birth place of deity and it is being worshipped
from times immemorial. The Court dismissed the suit. Issue wise
finding is as under;
O.O.S. No.
4 of 1989
Issues No. 1 and 1(a)
1. Whether the building in question described as mosque in the
sketch map attached to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as
the building) was a mosque as claimed by the plaintiffs? If
the answer is in the affirmative?
1(a) When was it built and by whom-whether by Babar as alleged
by the plaintiffs or by Meer Baqi as alleged by defendant
No. 13?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(b)
1(b) Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an
alleged Hindu temple after demolishing the same as alleged
by defendant No. 13? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs
on the basis of A.S.I. Report.
1(A). Whether the land adjoining the building on the east, north and
south sides, denoted by letters EFGH on the sketch map, was
an ancient graveyard and mosque as alleged in para 2 of the
plaint? If so, its effect?
Deleted vide courts order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 1(B)a
1-B(a). Whether the building existed at Nazul plot no. 583 of the
Khasra of the year 1931 of Mohalla Kot Ram Chandra known
as Ram Kot, city Ahodhya (Nazul estate of Ayodhya ? If so
its effect thereon)”
Property existed on Nazul Plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.
Issues No. 1(B)(b)
1B(b).Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as
alleged by the plaintiffs?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(c)
1-B (c ).Whether the building had been used by the members of the
Muslim community for offering prayers from times
immemorial ? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 1(B)(d)
1-B(d).Whether the alleged graveyard has been used by the
members of Muslim community for burying the dead
bodies of the members of the Muslim community? If so,
its effect?
Issue 1 B (d) deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
Issues No. 2, 4, 10, 15 & 28
2. Whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the property in
suit upto 1949 and were dispossessed from the same in 1949
as alleged in the plaint?
4. Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of Bhagwan
Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the
site by adverse and continuous possession as of right for more
than the statutory period of time by way of prescription as
alleged by the defendants?
10. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their rights by adverse
possession as alleged in the plaint?
15. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528 A.D. Continuously, openly and to the knowledge
of the defendants and Hindus in general? If so, its effect?
28. “Whether the defendant No. 3 has ever been in possession of
the disputed site and the plaintiffs were never in its
possession?”
These issues are decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 3
3. Is the suit within time?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 5(a)
5(a) Are the defendants estopped from challenging the character
of property in suit as a waqf under the administration of
plaintiff No. 1 in view of the provision of 5(3) of U.P. Act
13 of 1936?
(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge).
Issues No. 5(b)
5(b). Has the said Act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and defendants in particular, to the right of their
worship?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 5(c)
5(c). Were the proceedings under the said Act conclusive?
(This issue has already been decided in the negative vide
order dated 21.4.1966 by the learned Civil Judge.)
Issues No. 5(d)
5(d). Are the said provision of Act XIII of 1936 ultra-vires as
alleged in written statement?
(This issue was not pressed by counsel for the defendants,
hence not answered by the learned Civil Judge, vide his
order dated 21.4.1966).
Issues No. 5(e) and 5(f)
5(e). Whether in view of the findings recorded by the learned Civil
Judge on 21.4.1966 on issue no. 17 to the effect that, “No
valid notification under section 5(1) of the Muslim Waqf Act
(No. XIII of 1936) was ever made in respect of the property
in dispute”, the plaintiff Sunni Central Board of Waqf has no
right to maintain the present suit?
5(f). Whether in view of the aforesaid finding, the suit is barred on
accunt of lack of jurisdiction and limitation as it was filed
after the commencement of the U.P. Muslim Waqf Act,
1960?
Both these issues are decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issue No. 6
6. Whether the present suit is a representative suit, plaintiffs
representing the interest of the Muslims and defendants
representing the interest of the Hindus?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 7(a)
7(a). Whether Mahant Raghubar Dass, plaintiff of Suit No. 61/280
of 1885 had sued on behalf of Janma-Sthan and whole body
of persons interested in Janma-Sthan?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 7(b)
7(b). Whether Mohammad Asghar was the Mutwalli of alleged
Babri Masjid and did he contest the suit for and on behalf of
any such mosque?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 7(c)
7(c). Whether in view of the judgment in the said suit, the
members of the Hindu community, including the contesting
defendants, are estopped from denying the title of the
Muslim community, including the plaintiffs of the present
suit, to the property in dispute? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 7(d)
7(d). Whether in the aforesaid suit, title of the Muslims to the
property in dispute or any portion thereof was admitted by
plaintiff of that suit? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Does the judgment of Case No. 6/281 of 1881, Mahant
Raghubar Dass Vs. Secretary of State and others, operate as
res judicate against the defendants in suit?
Decided against the plaintiffs and this judgment will not
operate as resjudicata against the defendants in suit.
Issue No.9
9. Whether the plaintiffs served valid notices under Sec. 80
C.P.C. (Deleted vide order dated May 22/25, 1990).
Issues No.11, 13, 14, 19(a) & 19(c)
11. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram
Chandraji?
13. Whether the Hindus in general and defendants in particular
had the right to worship the Charans and 'Sita Rasoi' and
other idols and other objects of worship, if any, existing in
or upon the property in suit?
14. Have the Hindus been worshipping the place in dispute as Sri
Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan and have been visiting it
as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since times
immemorial? If so, its effect?
19(a).Whether even after construction of the building in suit deities
of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman and the Asthan Sri Ram Janam
Bhumi continued to exist on the property in suit as alleged on
behalf of defendant No. 13 and the said places continued to
be visisted by devotees for purposes of worship? If so,
whether the property in dispute continued to vest in the said
deities?
19(c). Whether any portion of the property in suit was used as a
place of worship by the Hindus immediately prior to the
construction of the building in question? If the finding is in
the affirmative, whether no mosque could come into existence
in view of the Islamic tenets, at the place in dispute?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.12
12. Whether idols and objects of worship were placed inside the
building in the night intervening 22nd and 23rd December,
1949 as alleged in paragraph 11 of the plaint or they have
been in existence there since before? In either case, effect?
Idols were installed in the building in the intervening
night of 22/23rd December, 1949.
Issue No.17
17. Whether a valid notification under Section 5(1) of the U.P.
Muslim Waqf Act No. XIII of 1936 relating to the property in
suit was ever done? If so, its effect?
(This issue has already been decided by the learned Civil
Judge by order dated 21.4.1966).
Issue No.18
18. What is the effect of the judgdment of their lordships of the
Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas and others Vs. State of U.P.
and others, A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 2198 on the finding of
the learned Civil Judge recorded on 21st April, 1966 on issue
no. 17?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issue No.19(b)
19(b). Whether the building was land-locked and cannot be reached
except by passing through places of Hindu worship? If so, its
effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.19(d)
19(d). Whether the building in question could not be a mosque
under the Islamic Law in view of the admitted position that it
did not have minarets?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 19(e)
19(e).Whether the building in question could not legally be a
mosque as on plaintiffs own showing it was surrounded by a
graveyard on three sides.
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issues No.19(F)
19(F).Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question
contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses? If the finding
is in the affirmative, whether on that account the building in
question cannot have the character of Mosque under the
tenets of Islam?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No.20(a)
20(a). Whether the Waqf in question cannot be a Sunni Waqf as the
building was not allegedly constructed by a Sunni
Mohammedan but was allegedly constructed by Meer Baqi
who was allegedly a Shia Muslim and the alleged Mutwalis
were allegedly Shia Mohammedans? If so, its effect?
Decided against the plaintiffs.
Issue No.20(b)
20(b). Whether there was a Mutwalli of the alleged Waqf and
whether the alleged Mutwalli not having joined in the suit, the
suit is not maintainable so far as it relates to relief for
possession?
Suit is not maintainable and the issue is decided in favour
of the defendants.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of alleged deities?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issues No. 23 & 24
23. If the wakf Board is an instrumentality of state? If so,
whether the said Board can file a suit against the state itself?
24. If the wakf Board is state under Article 12 of the
constitution? If so, the said Board being the state can file any
suit in representative capacity sponsering the case of
particular community and against the interest of another
community)”.
Issues are decided against the plaintiffs and the suit is not
maintainable.
Issues No. 25 & 26
25. “Whether demolition of the disputed structure as claimed by
the plaintiff, it can still be called a mosque and if not whether
the claim of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as no
longer maintainable?”
26. “Whether Muslims can use the open site as mosque to offer
prayer when structure which stood thereon has been
demolished?”
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issue No. 27
27. “Whether the outer court yard contained Ram Chabutra,
Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? If so whether they were also
demolished on 6.12.1992 along with the main temple?”
Yes, issue is decided in positive.
Issue No.16 & 22
16. To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs or any of them,
entitled?
22. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed with special costs?
Plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
The suit is dismissed with easy costs.
O.O.S No. 1 of 1989 (R.S.No.2-50)
Sri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others
The instant suit has been filed on the assertion that the father
of the plaintiff on 14.1.1950 was not allowed to touch the deity.
Accordingly the injunction has been sought on behalf of the
defendants including the State Government to not disallow the
plaintiff to touch the deity.
State Government opposed the claim and stated that in order
to control the crowd reasonable restrictions were imposed.
The suit was dismissed for the reasons (i) no valid notice was
given, ( ii) the plaintiff has no legal character and (iii) the State
Government can impose reasonable restrictions in public interest
to control the crowd and to enable every body to have the Darshan
of the deity.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
1 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 2 and 6
1. Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Shri Ram
Chandra Ji?
2. Are there any idols of Bhagwan Ram Chandra Ji and are His
Charan Paduka’ situated in the site in suit.?
6. Is the property in suit a mosque constructed by Shansha
Babar commonly known as Babri mosque, in 1528A.D.?
Connected with issues No. 1(a), 1(b), 1-B (b), 19-d, 19-e
and 19-f of the Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the Sunni Central Waqf Board, U.P.
Issues No. 3, 4 & 7
3. Has the plaintiff any right to worship the ‘Charan Paduka’ and
the idols situated in the place in suit.?
12
4. Has the plaintiff the right to have Darshan of the place in
suit.?
7. Have the Muslims been in possession of the property in suit
from 1528A.D.?
Connected with Issues No. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15,19-a, 19-b, 19-c, 27 and 28 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989,
wherein these issues have been decided in favour of
defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 9, 9(a), 9(b) & 9(c)
9. Is the suit barred by provision of section (5) (3) of the Muslim
Waqfs Act (U.P. Act 13 of 1936);?
(a) Has the said act no application to the right of Hindus in
general and plaintiff of the present suit, in particular to his
right of worship.?
(b) Were the proceedings under the said act referred to in written
statement para 15 collusive? If so, its effect?
(c) Are the said provisions of the U.P. Act 13 of 1936 ulta-vires
for reasons given in the statement of plaintiff’s counsel dated
9.3.62 recorded on paper No.454-A-?
Connected with Issues No. 5-a, 5-b, 5-c, 5-d, 5-e, 5-f, 7-b,
17(issue no.17 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989 has already been
decided by the Civil Judge, Faizabad) 18, 20-a, 20-b, 23,
24, 25 and 26 of Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these
issues have been decided in favour of defendants and
against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 5(a) & 5(b)
5(a) Was the property in suit involved in original suit no.61/280 of
1885 in the court of sub-judge, Faizabad Raghubar Das
Mahant Vs. Secretary of State for India & others.?
5(b) Was it decided against the plaintiff.?
Connected with issue No. 1-B (a) of Original Suit No. 4 of
1989.
Property existed on Nazul plot No. 583 belonging to
Government.
Issues No. 5(c) & 5(d)
5(c) Was that suit within the knowledge of Hindus in general and
were all Hindus interest in the same.?
5(d) Does the decision in same bar the present suit by principles of
Resjudicata and in any other way?
Connected with issue No. 7-a, 7-c, 7-d and issue no. 8 in
Original Suit No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues have been
decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 13
13. Is the suit No.2 of 50 Shri Gopal Singh Visharad Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 8
8. Is the suit barred by proviso to section 42 Specific Relief
Act.?
Decided against the plaintiffs and in favour of defendants.
Issues No. 11(a) & 11(b)
11(a) Are the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. applicable to present
suit ? If so is the suit bad for want of consent in writing by the
advocate general ?
11(b) Are the rights set up by the plaintiff in this suit independent of
the provisions of section 91 C.P.C. ? if not its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 12
12. Is the suit bad for want of steps and notices under order 1
Rule 8 C.P.C. ? If so its effect. ?
Decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit no.25 of 50 Param Hans Ram Chandra Vs. Zahoor
Ahmad bad for want of valid notice under section 80 C.P.C. ?
Withdrawn, no finding is required.
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of defendants.?
NO
Issue No. 10
10. Is the present suit barred by time ?
NO
Issue No. 16 & 17
16. Are the defendants or any of them entitled to special costs
under section 35-A C.P.C.?
17. To what reliefs, if any, is the plaintiff entitled. ?
Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
dismissed with easy costs.
OOS No. 3 of 1989
Nirmohi Akhara & Anr. Vs. Shri Jamuna Prasad Singh & Ors.
The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara, alleging that right
from times immemorial, they are worshipping the deities.
Accordingly the management of the temple may be handed over to
the plaintiff by defendant- State Government.
The defendants have contested the claim and this Court
found the suit barred by time and also on merits that the plaintiff
failed to prove the case.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows;
O.O.S. No.
3 of 1989
Issues No. 1, 5 and 6
1. Is there a temple of Janam Bhumi with idols installed therein
as alleged in para 3 of the plaint ?
5. Is the property in suit a mosque made by Emperor Babar
Known as Babari masjid ?
6. Was the alleged mosque dedicated by Emperor Babar for
worship by Muslims in general and made a public waqf
property?
Connected with Issues No. 1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 12, 19(d),
19(e) and 19(f) of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989, wherein these issues
have been decided in favour of defendants and against the
plaintiffs.
Issues No. 2, 3, 4 & 8
2. Does the property in suit belong to the plaintiff No.1 ?
3. Have plaintiffs acquired title by adverse possession for over 12
years ?
4. Are plaintiffs entitled to get management and charge of the
said temple ?
8. Have the rights of the plaintiffs extinguished for want of
possession for over 12 years prior to the suit ?
Connected with Issues No. 1B(c), 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,
19(a), 19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against the Plaintiffs.
Issues No. 7(a), 7(b) & 16
7(a) Has there been a notification under Muslim Waqf Act (Act
no.13 of 1936) declaring this property in suit as a Sunni Waqf ?
7(b) Is the said notification final and binding ? Its effect.
16. Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 83 of U.P. Act 13 of
1936 ?
Connected with issues no. 5(a), 5(b), 5(c), 5(d), 5(e), 5(f),
7(b), 17, 18, 20(a), 20(b), 23, 24, 25 and 26 in O.O.S No. 4 of
1989, wherein these issues have been decided against the
plaintiffs.
Issue No. 9
9. Is the suit within time ?
Connected with issues no. 3 decided in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issues No. 10(a) & 10(b)
10(a) Is the suit bad for want of notice u/s 80 C. P.C.
10(b) Is the above plea available to contesting defendants ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 11
11. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary defendants ?
Connected with Issue No. 21 of O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs.
Issue No. 14
14. Is the suit not maintainable as framed ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 17
17. (Added by this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96) “Whether
Nirmohi Akhara, Plaintiff, is Panchayati Math of Rama Nandi
sect of Bairagies and as such is a religious denomination
following its religious faith and per suit according to its own
custom.”
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No. 15
15. Is the suit properly valued and Court-Fee paid sufficient ?
(Already decided)
Issues No. 12 & 13
12. Are defendants entitled to special costs u/s 35 C.P.C. ?
No.
13. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
Suit is Dismissed.
O.O.S. No. 5 of 1989 (R.S.NO. 236/1989
Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman & Ors. Vs. Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors.
The instant suit was filed on behalf of the deities and Sri
Ram Janm Bhumi through the next friend, praying that the
defendants be restrained not to interfere in the construction of the
temple of plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that the deities are
perpetual minors and against them Limitation Laws do not run.
This Court is of the view that place of birth that is Ram Janm
Bhumi is a juristic person. The deity also attained the divinity like
Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of
divine worshipped as the birth place of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as
a child . Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all
times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance
with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.
Case has been decided on the basis of decision of Hon'ble the Apex
Court specially the law as laid down in 1999(5) SCC page 50,
Ram Janki Deity Vs. State of Bihar, Gokul Nath Ji Mahraj Vs.
Nathji Bhogilal AIR 1953 Allahabad 552, AIR 1967 Supreme
Court 1044 Bishwanath and another Vs. Shri Thakur
Radhabhallabhji and others & other decisions of Privy Council
and of different High Courts.
Finding of the court issue wise is as follows:
O.O.S. No.
5 of 1989
ISSUES NO. 1, 2 & 6
1. Whether the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are juridical persons?
2. Whether the suit in the name of deities described in the
plaint as plaintiffs 1 and 2 is not maintainable through
plaintiff no. 3 as next friend?
6. Is the plaintiff No. 3 not entitled to represent the plaintiffs 1
and 2 as their next friend and is the suit not competent on this
account ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
ISSUES NO. 9, 10, 14 & 22
9. Was the disputed structure a mosque known as Babri
Masjid ?
10. Whether the disputed structure could be treated to be a
mosque on the allegations, contained in paragraph-24 of the
plaint ?
14. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was erected after demolishing Janma-Sthan temple at its site?
22. Whether the premises in question or any part thereof is by
tradition, belief and faith the birth place of Lord Rama as
alleged in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the plaint ? If so, its
effect ?
Connected with issues No.1, 1(a), 1(b), 1B(b), 11, 19(d),
19(e) & 19(f) in O.O.S. No. 4 of 1989.
Decided against Sunni Waqf Board and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
ISSUES NO.15, 16 & 24
15. Whether the disputed structure claimed to be Babri Masjid
was always used by the Muslims only, regularly for offering
Namaz ever since its alleged construction in 1528 A.D. To
22nd December 1949 as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5 ?
16. Whether the title of plaintiffs 1 & 2, if any, was
extinguished as alleged in paragraph 25 of the written
statement of defendant no. 4 ? If yes, have plaintiffs 1 &
2 reacquired title by adverse possession as alleged in
paragraph 29 of the plaint ?
24. Whether worship has been done of the alleged plaintiff deity
on the premises in suit since time immemorial as alleged in
paragraph 25 of the plaint?
Connected with issues no. 1-B(c), 2, 4, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19(a),
19(b), 19(c), 27 & 28 of O.O.S. No.4 of 1989.
Above issues are decided against Sunni Central Waqf
Board and Others.
Issue No.17
17. Whether on any part of the land surrounding the structure
in dispute there are graves and is any part of that land a
Muslim Waqf for a graveyard ?
Deleted vide this Hon'ble Court order dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.23
23. Whether the judgment in suit No. 61/280 of 1885 filed by
Mahant Raghuber Das in the Court of Special Judge,
Faizabad is binding upon the plaintiffs by application of the
principles of estoppel and res judicata, as alleged by the
defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against the defendants and in favour of the
plaintiffs.
Issue No.5
(5) Is the property in question properly identified and described
in the plaint ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and in favour of the
defendants.
Issues No. 7 & 8
(7) Whether the defendant no. 3, alone is entitled to represent
plaintiffs 1 and 2, and is the suit not competent on that
account as alleged in paragraph 49 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 ?
(8) Is the defendant Nirmohi Akhara the “Shebait” of Bhagwan
Sri Rama installed in the disputed structure ?
Decided against the defendant no.3 and in favour of
plaintiffs no. 1, 2 and 3.
Issues No.19
19. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,
as pleaded in paragraph 43 of the additional written
statement of defendant no. 3 ?
Suit is maintainable.
Issue No.20
20. Whether the alleged Trust, creating the Nyas defendant no.
21, is void on the facts and grounds, stated in paragraph 47
of the written statement of defendant no. 3 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendant no.3.
Issue No.21
21. Whether the idols in question cannot be treated as deities
as alleged in paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 21, 22, 27 and 41 of the
written statement of defendant no. 4 and in paragraph 1 of
the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants no. 4 and 5.
Issues No. 26 & 27
26. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80
C.P.C. as alleged by the defendants 4 and 5?
27. Whether the plea of suit being bad for want of notice under
Section 80 C.P.C. can be raised by defendants 4 and 5 ?
Decided against defendant nos. 4 & 5.
Issue No.25
25. Whether the judgment and decree dated 30th March 1946
passed in suit no. 29 of 1945 is not binding upon the
plaintiffs as alleged by the plaintiffs ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.29
29. Whether the plaintiffs are precluded from bringing the
present suit on account of dismissal of suit no. 57 of 1978
(Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Vs. state) of the Court of Munsif
Sadar, Faizabad?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.28
28. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 65
of the U.P. Muslim Waqfs Act, 1960 as alleged by defendants
4 and 5 ? If so, its effect?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants
no. 4 and 5.
Issue No.18
18. Whether the suit is barred by Section 34 of the the Specific
Relief Act as alleged in paragraph 42 of the additional
written statement of defendant no. 3 and also as alleged in
paragraph 47 of the written statement of defendant no. 4 and
paragraph 62 of the written statement of defendant no. 5 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issues No. 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d) & 4
3(a) Whether the idol in question was installed under the central
dome of the disputed building (since demolished) in the early
hours of December 23, 1949 as alleged by the plaintiff in
paragraph 27 of the plaint as clarified on 30.4.92 in their
statement under order 10 Rule 2 C.P.C. ?
3(b) Whether the same idol was reinstalled at the same place on a
chabutra under the canopy?
3(c) “Whether the idols were placed at the disputed site on or after
6.12.92 in violation of the courts order dated 14.8.1989,
7.11.1989 and 15.11. 91 ?
3(d) If the aforesaid issue is answered in the affirmative, whether
the idols so placed still acquire the status of a deity?”
(4) Whether the idols in question had been in existence under the
“Shikhar” prior to 6.12.92 from time immemorial as alleged
in paragraph-44 of the additional written statement of
defendant no. 3 ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.11
(11) Whether on the averments made in paragraph-25 of the
plaint, no valid waqf was created in respect of the structure in
dispute to constitute it as a mosque ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.12
(12) If the structure in question is held to be mosque, can the same
be shifted as pleaded in paragraphs 34 and 35 of the plaint?
Deleted vide court order dated 23.2.96.
Issue No.13
(13) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
Decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
Issue No.30
30. To what relief, if any, are plaintiffs or any of them entitled?
Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed and the suit is
decreed with easy costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)