Babri Mosque bench judge goes public with dissent note

[fallstuff]

Special Ayodhya bench judge goes public with dissent note


LUCKNOW: Reinforcing the speculation that it could be a split verdict on Ayodhya title suit, one of the judges of the three- judge special bench went public with his dissenting note on Monday. Just four days before the special bench is to pronounce verdict in the case, Justice DV Sharma while taking a stand which is contrary to the views of two judges who rejected any chance for amicable settlement through mediation on September 17, observed that the other two judges could not abruptly reject the plea for mediation and reconciliation of Ayodhya dispute.

In his isolated order pronounced on Monday, Justice Sharma observed: "...the only direction that is required to be given on the application seeking settlement of the 60-year-old dispute on Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute through compromise was that the contesting parties are free to resolve their dispute amicably before the date of delivery of judgment and at this stage no interference of the court is required."

Two of the three judge of the special bench -- Justice SU Khan and Justice Sudhir Agrawal -- on September 17 rejected an application of a defendant Ramesh Chandra Tripathi holding that his attempt for mediation was not bonafide. The two judges had also expressed views that an attempt was being made for postponing the judgment which is to be delivered on September 24.

Justice Sharma expressed his disappointment that the other two judges had not consulted him while passing the order on Tripathi's application. On September 17, the two judges had made several queries from Tripathi's lawyer while Justice Sharma had maintained silence. Thereafter, the trio retired to the chamber and the order was passed.

Justice Sharma also observed on Monday that the two judges could not impose as much as Rs 50,000 fine on the applicant Tripathi as section 35a of the Civil Procedure Code ( CPC) provided that the cost could not exceed Rs 3,000. "I am sorry to state that at the time of the passing of order I was not consulted...," said Justice Sharma in his order.


Read more: Special Ayodhya bench judge goes public with dissent note - The Times of India

 

[fallstuff]

Judge Sharma gives dissenting note on Ayodhya verdict

LUCKNOW: Days before the verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit is to be delivered, one of the three judges of the Allahabad high court’s Lucknow bench has disagreed with the order passed by the other two judges last Friday.

Writing a dissenting note against the majority order, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma on Monday said he was not consulted by the other two judges before dismissing the plea for mediation, and has directed all parties to approach the court before September 23 if a compromise is reached between them.

The verdict in the 60-year-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit is slated to be delivered on September 24. A plea to defer the verdict on the title suit for finding an amicable solution was rejected by Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal last Friday.

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, who is a member of the three-judge bench and had not signed the order passed last Friday, said in his dissenting note on Monday that had he been consulted by his co-judges he would have definitely given his views on the plea before the court.

He also said the applicant Ramesh Chandra Tripathi, who had moved the court seeking mediation, was also not required to pay the penalty of Rs 50,000 imposed by the court.

Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal had slapped an “exemplary cost” of Rs 50,000 against Mr Tripathi and said his effort seeking out-of-the-court settlement seemed to be a “mischievous attempt” aimed at “creating obstruction” in the final disposal of the case.

Justice Sharma favoured exploring mediation or an out-of-the-court settlement and said the concerned parties were free to resolve their disputes amicably before the date of delivery of the judgement (September 24) and at this stage no interference of the court is required.

Justice Sharma, in his order, said there was reasonable ground to believe that the applicant (Ramesh Chandra Tripathi) and Nirmohee Akhada are willing to resolve the dispute.

Judge Sharma gives dissenting note on Ayodhya verdict - The Economic Times

 

[Awesome]

I disagree with the compromise, there is only one solution - rebuild the mosque and punish those who demolished it.

Compromising is akin to assuaging the Hindus over a heinous crime they committed.

 

[roach]

I disagree with the compromise, there is only one solution - rebuild the mosque and punish those who demolished it.

Compromising is akin to assuaging the Hindus over a heinous crime they committed.

Getting very simplistic, aren't you?

I won't insult your intelligence by putting forward the usual arguments about history and public sentiment.

Just wondering that if you were a neutral observer (and not a muslim), would your opinions be the same?

 

[Awesome]

Getting very simplistic, aren't you?

I won't insult your intelligence by putting forward the usual arguments about history and public sentiment.

Just wondering that if you were a neutral observer (and not a muslim), would your opinions be the same?

If you asked me should the Bamiyan statues have to be rebuilt or replaced with a mosque, I won't only support them being rebuilt, I would oppose the building of a mosque.

If you compromise, you legitimize India's own Talibanistic act.

 

[Awesome]

Public feelings? Hindus sarr jayenge? I don't care, I say they even have to be punished, not just the rebuilding of the mosque. THey committed a crime and MUST pay for it.

 

[mrwarrior006]

guyz these is completely indian issue related completely with indian people wy is it has to discussed be with pakistanis; is there consult required on this matter well i don think so

 

[roach]

Um, there's a difference between

Destroying a monument wantonly in order to wipe out all traces of religious beliefs other than your own,

and

A religious monument that was destroyed by a misguided and politically-motivated fundamentalist movement.

There's a lot of baggage around when it comes to 'Wanton Destruction of Other's Religious Monuments'.

It is a razor's edge that the Indian state walks on-no easy answers. The land should be shared in an amicable way, or used for a Secular purpose.

 

[Awesome]

guyz these is completely indian issue related completely with indian people wy is it has to discussed be with pakistanis; is there consult required on this matter well i don think so

For Pakistanis, the demolition of the mosque was a shocking reminder of what life would've been like under the tyranny of India's Hindus.

The Babri case is closely followed by all in Pakistan and much of the Muslim world. The only riot like situation the UAE has ever witnessed in its history was when the Babri Masjid was demolished.

 

[Awesome]

Um, there's a difference between

Destroying a monument wantonly in order to wipe out all traces of religious beliefs other than your own,

and

A religious monument that was destroyed by a misguided and politically-motivated fundamentalist movement.

There's a lot of baggage around when it comes to 'Wanton Destruction of Other's Religious Monuments'.

It is a razor's edge that the Indian state walks on-no easy answers. The land should be shared in an amicable way, or used for a Secular purpose.

Nope, mosque was destroyed, mosque should be rebuilt and criminals be punished.

India's Hindu fundamentalist criminals should not get anything out of their crime.

 

[mrwarrior006]

For Pakistanis, the demolition of the mosque was a shocking reminder of what life would've been like under the tyranny of India's Hindus.

The Babri case is closely followed by all in Pakistan and much of the Muslim world. The only riot like situation the UAE has ever witnessed in its history was when the Babri Masjid was demolished.

still my point stands tat its our internal matter & no outsider plz

 

[Awesome]

still my point stands tat its our internal matter & no outsider plz

You can hope so, but when you commit crimes against humanity, it's everybody's business.

 

[mrwarrior006]

You can hope so, but when you commit crimes against humanity, it's everybody's business.

hope u can say tat for ur country

i am not justifying anything i know wat was done was wrong & my country is doin wat it takes to be corrected

wat i am saying is its none of outsiders business

 

[T-Faz]

guyz these is completely indian issue related completely with indian people wy is it has to discussed be with pakistanis; is there consult required on this matter well i don think so

The reason Pakistanis are involved in this discussion is because the Babri Masjid incident had a profound impact on Pakistan too. Muslim fundamentalists from Pakistan wrongfully attacked Hindu temples in Pakistan and destroyed many this way.

This incident just solidified Jinnahs argument on why Partition was necessary, imagine a united India where this incident might have occured.

The verdict of this trial should be one that is satisfactory to the victims.

We do not want to be affected negatively again by this incident, India can prove it's secular and democratic credentials with the correct verdict.

 

[Anonymous_Clown]

You can hope so, but when you commit crimes against humanity, it's everybody's business.

One mosque demolished in 63 years, and all this nonsense about 'crime against Humanity'? India has a much much better record than Pakistan as far as protecting minorities is concerned. Much better. Off the back of my head I can think of 2-3 recent instances immediately, such as a gang of Pakistani Muslims lynching Hindu kids to death for drinking from a public tap. Too lazy to post the link, Google will bring this result immediately.

For all your bullshit on 'genocide', it always happens that in India, when there are communal riots (rare), both Hindus and Muslims die in large numbers. Unlike Pakistan, where Muslims gang up and kill minorities who are in hopelessly small numbers.