This is first of series of articles which will cover the despicable and shameful NDTV coverage yesterday
This section covers the portion where Barkha Dutt is trying to interpret the judgment on whether the disputed structure was a mosque or not
Javed Akhtar
If mosque was not according to Islamic tenets, if it was actually not really a mosque
Barkha Dutt (interrupts)
That only one of judges have said and If I am not wrong it was dissenting judge
Javed Akhtar
If we accept there was a temple there, if we accept that this is the exact place of Ram Janam. Then why 1/3 land is given to muslims… I dont understand
Barkha Dutt (interrupts)
Because… May I answer that question .. what is happened is all three judges had three separate judgments. One judge Justice Sharma had a completely dissenting judgment in favor of Hindu groups But Justice Aggarwal and Justice Sharma agreed on some things and Justice Khan and Justice Aggarwal agreed on other things and that is what is happened
This is amusing. The golden principle of journalism is report like ‘fly on wall’ but here instead of getting the expert advice. Barkha takes upon herself to explain the judgment to panelist which even consisted of a judge!! Makes one wonder who was journalist and who was panelist presenting ‘their side’ of case.
Then she goes on to read the actual judgment of Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J.
Justice Khan actually says the disputed structure was constructed as a mosque by or under orders of Babar. He also says No temple was demolished for building of this mosque but he says Mosque could have been constructed over the ruins of other temples .. general temples that were lying in utter ruins for a very long time before decision was taken to build this mosque. He also says the idol of ram lalla was was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of 23.12.1949. This justice khan.. to woh jo baat apne kahi(in hindi) of that not being the mosque that only the dissenting judge … we should first clarify that .. this Justice Khan very clearly saying
Justice Aggarwal has not gone into that issues he has merely said drawn a distinction…
Clarification: Barkha used words ‘other’ or ‘general' temples’. The judgment donot have words ‘other’ or ‘general' temples’. Usage of these words may portray a completely different meaning.
Also, I am still trying to understand why Barkha chose to just refer only GIST OF THE FINDINGS by S.U.Khan J. Is it because it suited her line of argument. A neutral commentator would have dissected all the three judgments
Justice Sanchar interrupts asks Barkha…
He (guess Justice Aggarwal) accepts it as mosque?
Barkha
Yes and he says the central dome. He draws a distinction. Justice Aggarwal from what I have understood draws a distinction between central dome and inner courtyard
So according to my interpretation; Barkha wants us to believe that Judgment says the disputed structure was a mosque. And reasons being
- Justice Khan said so
- Justice Aggarwal did not go into this issue and seems he accepts it as a mosque. He even makes a distinction between central Dome and inner courtyard
- Justice Sharma gave a dissenting judgment
Following are facts -
Lets start with Justice Sharma. Justice Sharma has categorically stated that structure is not mosque as it was build against tenets of Islam
The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year
is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it
cannot have the character of a mosque.
The relevant tenets of Islam which Justice Sharma is referring are -
Issues No.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?HC Ruling: Decided against the plaintiffs.(Sunni Central Board of Waqfs)
This means courts have accepted 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 thus building in question cant be Mosque under the tenets of Islam
Issues No.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?
HC Ruling: Decided against the plaintiffs (Sunni Central Board of Waqfs) and in favour of the defendants(Gopal Singh Visharad and others)
This means courts have accepted pillars inside and outside the building in question contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses co structure cant be Mosque under the tenets of Islam
Now lets see what Justice Aggarwal says. Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. clearly mentions
The building in dispute was constructed after demolition of Non-
Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple
So if structure was constructed after demolition of Non-Islamic religious structure, i.e., a Hindu temple then how can it be a mosque under tenets of Islam(per Issues No.19(c).)!
Lastly lets see what Justice Khan say. per my reading on this issue Justice Khan dissented from other two judges. Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah Khan ,J. however has been categorical that
No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.Mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins since a very long time before the construction of mosque and some material thereof was used in construction of the mosque.
So atleast to a untrained person like me, it looks like majority of Judges were of view that the disputed structure was constructed after demolition of Hindu religious structure. If it was so, it was against tenets of Islam and if it was against tenets of Islam how can it be mosque
