Why has the Allahabad high court come up with a judgment of “conciliatory” nature in the highly sensitive Ayodhya case? The question has been aptly answered by it by describing the disputed land as “landmines” with serious consequences for the country and its people.
“Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land mines. We are required to clear it,” said Justice Khan in highly emotive introductory remarks in his judgment. He even pointed out the “risk” involved for the judiciary in adjudicating the case of this nature, in which the emotions of both the communities — Hindus and Muslims — are involved, saying “some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown.”
But once the constitutional duty was cost on the judges, they could not shirk their responsibility, was the message sent by the judges, who came up with the proposal for trifurcation of the disputed 2.77 acres of land to allow both Hindus and Muslims to enjoy it after they had been worshipping their own way there for centuries.
“However, we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when occasion for the same arises,” Justice Khan observed while leaving it at the judgement of the people of the country whether they “succeeded or failed” in their attempt to decide the issue, apparently in a bid to defuse the tension. “Once angels were made to bow before man. Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own cause,” Justice Khan observed. The observation assumes significance in view of an attempt made by the judges during the hearing for resolve the issue through mediation and go for an out-of-court settlement rather than seeking a judicial verdict strictly within the four corners of the law as the judges very well knew that it was not “justifiable” issue if law is applied in strict sense.