Supreme Court told Hindu Taliban Destroyed Babri Mosque
Supreme Court told Hindu Taliban Destroyed Babri Mosque
On Friday a litigant in the Babri Mosque Demolition case told to Supreme Court of India that The Babri Masjid was destroyed by the "Hindu Taliban" just like the demolition of the Buddha
statue by the Taliban at Bamiyan in Afghanistan
No law or the Constitution allows destruction of religious structures of any faith.
Advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing for the legal heirs of M Siddiq one of the original litigants in the case and has died, told to Supreme Court bench
Dhavan also told to SC bench that it was way back in 1946 that the Babri Masjid was held to be a Sunni mosque
"You cannot argue that this (demolition of mosque) was by some miscreants," he said, adding, "What had happened in 1992? The Bamiyan statue was destroyed by the Taliban and this mosque was destroyed by Hindu Taliban. It cannot be done. It should not have been done. No one can do this".
He argued that those who destroyed the mosque should be barred from making any claim since "no one has the right to destroy a mosque or any other religious structures.
"The simple argument is that the fact that a mosque is destroyed does not conclude the argument of right to prayer," he said. Dhavan said the Shia board's argument that it wanted to donate a share of the land to the Hindu group was like "indulging in a non-existent act of charity".
On July 6, the UP government had told the apex court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict in M Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.
During the arguments today, Dhavan said there was "no delay" on their part in the matter and the UP
government was supposed to "remain neutral" in the dispute.
He said that after the Faruqui case verdict, no occasion arose to ask for setting aside or modification of this judgement and, as per this verdict, the Centre was to act as an statutory receiver of the disputed land.
"That neutrality (of UP) has been broken by the ASG. The ASG is the Additional Solicitor General of the Government of India. Union of India has to act as an statutory receiver. It does not lie in the mouth of an officer of the Government of India to say that it (matter) is delayed and there is no bonafide," he said, adding, "it is simply impermissible and and a breach of faith of this court".
He said the issue of Faruqui's verdict was raised by the opposite parties in the suits before the high court.
Dhavan also countered the arguments advanced by the Hindu group about "pilgrimage" and said as per their submissions, the Muslims do not have the right under Article 25 (freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion).
He said if arguments by Hindu group was to be accepted, then Christians might be asked to go directly to the Pope for prayers and Sikhs could be asked to go only to the Golden Temple at Amritsar.
Reality views by sm -
Saturday,july 14,2018
Tags – Babri Mosque Demolition Case
