On 29th October 2018, the Supreme Court of India further delayed the Ayodhya case. This prompted many to demand a law for construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. This also resulted in ‘secularists’ and various parties opposing any law and arguing in favor of a court judgment, and advising people to wait for it, however long it takes.
The Lok Sabha must pass a law felicitating construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. A similar law called ‘Places of Worship Act’ was passed in 1991 in the Lok Sabha which said that all religious places in India will remain as they were on 15th August 1947, thereby denying the benefits of Independence to Hindus, and effectively refuting the claim on Kashi and Mathura. This law will have to be repealed or amended for Hindus to claim Kahsi Vishwanath temple in Kashi and Krishnajanmabhoomi in Mathura. In this law passed in 1991, Ayodhya was left out on the excuse that the matter is in courts.
The Government as well as we should give the argument that courts give judgments not on whims of judges but on basis of laws passed by Parliament, and thereby the law passed will ensure that any court will have to support Ram temple. For example, in case a person is convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a court cannot give him death penalty. It can only give punishment ranging from minimum fine with no imprisonment to maximum fine plus 10 years imprisonment. It must give judgment based on laws passed by Parliament on the issue. In its Raipur resolution in July 2003, BJP had said law for Ram temple should be done if mutual dialogue cannot solve the issue
At that time, NDA allies were against Ram temple law & BJP did not have majority in the Lok Sabha, but only 182 seats and the NDA agenda did not include Ram temple construction. But now BJP has a clear majority in the Lok Sabha. It is not possible to achieve temple construction through ‘mutual dialogue’ since the Muslim side will never give up its claim, and even if the representatives do, any other Muslim can challenge it.
Those Hindus who argue that a Ram temple should be built only after judgment of the Supreme Court are assuming that the judgment will be in favor of a temple. What if the SC orders construction of Babri Mosque at the disputed site? Hence, the power to decide this issue must be taken out of the hand of the SC, by law passed by Parliament. Such a law should be passed, that any court will have to order construction of a temple, even if it is to be decided by court.
Besides, in the past judgments of the SC have been overturned by Parliament laws, eg Shah Bano case and even the case of dilution of SC-ST Atrocities Act. Opponents of law for Ram temple must be exposed as law avoiders & violators. The argument that ‘Courts give judgments not on basis of whims of judges but on basis of laws passed by Parliament’ must be made repeatedly.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of SatyaVijayi.