It is understandable that the media, as watchdog of the democracy, has its exclusive right to freedom of speech and expression, even a citizen of India has his right to freedom of speech and expression too.
However, the news article published in the URL CLICK HERE titled "Ayodhya judgment: Flawed, but it has its positive sides" by Amulya Ganguli, a political analyst, appears to have its own flaws too. Therefore, I would like to raise this question that whether a political analyst will be competent enough to act as a judicial analyst too? Probably not. I think he has crossed his limit, in which he has his specialization, by trying to find out flaws in a High Court Judgement. The Apex court appears to be the appropriate body to decide any flawed High Court Judgements but not a political analyst.
It is known to me that the Court will not interfere into an administrative order, however erroneous, if not challenged on the grounds of contravention of fundamental rights. To enforce Fundamental Rights, it is incumbent upon the petitioner/s to prove that not only any laws of the government has been violated against him, also, his Fundamental Rights has been violated by such action.
Accordingly, I will try to address the following flaws, as mentioned by said Amulya Ganguli, in constitutional perspective. Short description about the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of State Policy also mentioned below.
Amulya Ganguli has written in said article, "A major one (flaw in the Ayodhya judgment) is the acceptance of the presence of the Ram idols in the now demolished Babri Masjid as genuine proof of the right of ownership by the deity". Here, one needs to consider that such of an acceptance probably was by made the Judge concerned on the basis of his observation about the case materials and also considering the belief and faith of the Hindus, where the Hon'ble Judge himself is the best to decide the issues involving secularism.
Another flaw mentioned by him, "By ignoring the political angle, the judgment has seemingly turned a blind eye to the destruction of the mosque by the latter-day kar sevaks, which was also intended to spark off Hindu-Muslim riots in the hope of mobilising the Hindu voters for the BJP". Here, I reckon, that the Court simply did not interfere into the matter since none probably made a case of said destruction before said court or proved about the issue, as in order to enforce fundamental rights it is incumbent upon the petitioner/s to prove that not only any administrative order or laws of the government has been violated against him, also his Fundamental Rights has been violated by such action.
And the last one that I would like to address about the statement, "if the judgment can really defuse communal tension, it will be a blow against the fundamentalists on both sides and help India to continue with its success story." Here, please note that defusing communal tension in question, for any reason, is the duty of the State or the Union, The court has nothing to do with it but will follow its own course of action according to its judicial limitation or jurisdiction and will express its opinion about a case irrespective of the fact whether there is a question of defusing communal tension or not.
The Fundamental Rights are defined as the basic human rights of all citizens. These rights, defined in Part III of the Constitution, apply irrespective of race, place of birth, religion, caste, creed or gender. They are enforceable by the courts, subject to specific restrictions.
The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, are not enforceable by the courts, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that the State is expected to apply in framing and passing laws.
Fundamental Rights: (Part III of CI)
Fundamental Rights is a charter of rights contained in the Constitution of India. It guarantees civil liberties such that all Indians can lead their lives in peace and harmony as citizens of India. These include equality before law, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom to practice religion, and the right to constitutional remedies for the protection of civil rights. The Fundamental Rights are enforceable by the courts, subject to certain restrictions. The six fundamental rights recognised by the constitution are:
1.The right to equality
2.The right to freedom
3.The right to freedom from exploitation
4.The right to freedom of religion
5.Cultural and educational rights
6.The right to constitutional remedies
Right to freedom of religion, covered in Articles 25, 26, 27 and 28, provides religious freedom to all citizens of India. The objective of this right is to sustain the principle of secularism in India. According to the Constitution, all religions are equal before the State and no religion shall be given preference over the other. Citizens are free to preach, practice and propagate any religion of their choice.
The Directive Principles of State Policy: (Part IV of CI)
The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines for the framing of laws by the government. These provisions, set out in Part IV of the Constitution, but the principles on which they are based are fundamental guidelines for governance that the State is expected to apply in framing and passing laws. Although these principles are asserted to be fundamental in the governance of the country, they are not legally enforceable. It shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.
Constitutional machinery of the Union and the directive principles of the State policy are meant to achieve the objective of the Constitution.
Soumendra Nath Thakur is a citizen of India, he can be reached at the email id
postmasterenator@gmail.com
