Disputes of faith beyond the court

Disputes of faith beyond the court

The Supreme Court is right to advise parties to the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute to find an out-of-court settlement. When politicians toss hot potatoes to the court, it is not obliged to catch them. When a complex legal principle is at stake, the Supreme Court has a role to play. When it is a matter of sifting evidence, there is little reason for the matter to go beyond a high court. And when the problem is something that is not amenable to adjudication, the courts should simply refuse to get involved. The Kerala High Court has, indeed, a healthy precedent of asking two quarrelling Christian denominations to settle their spiritual dispute on their own.
The Babri Masjid demolition is a criminal case that still drags on without conclusion. Who owns the land on which the demolished mosque stood is a property dispute that involves no legal principle. The high court could well have settled the matter. But determining ownership of the piece of land on which a 16th-century mosque stood would not resolve the dispute, at whose core is amatter of faith. Many people believe that Lord Ram was born at that exact site, and deem it appropriate that a temple should be built in his honour right at that place. Playing on this sentiment, the Sangh Parivar launched a campaign in the mid-1980s to demolish the mosque, which task was accomplished in 1992.
Even if the property dispute is settled, on the basis of evidence, in favour of the Babri Masjid Action Committee, it does not mean that an amicable solution cannot be found. That solution would have to be on the basis of generosity and accommodation, not a legal mandate. The court errs in offering to be part of the mediation process. The state should not be a party to mediation over religious sentiments. Leave the parties to see sense on their own.