Author: J. Venkatesan
Publication: The Hindu
Date: October 3, 2010
URL: http://www.hindu.com/2010/10/03/stories/2010100362631000.htm
It is evident that the status of place as
deity had continued, says Allahabad High Court
When Hindus believe that the place of birth
of Lord Rama was within the disputed site of the Ayodhya temple, such belief
partakes the nature of essential part of religion and is protected under Article
25 of the Constitution (right to profess one's religion), the Lucknow Bench
of the Allahabad High Court has held.
A Bench of Justices S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal
and D.V. Sharma (since retired) in separate judgments held on Thursday that
the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Rama on the basis of people's
faith.
Justice Agarwal, in his over 5,000-page judgment,
said: "We are of the view that once such belief gets concentrated to
a particular point, and in totality of the facts, we also find no reason otherwise,
it partakes the nature of an essential part of religion, particularly when
it relates to a matter which is of peculiar significance to a religion. It,
therefore, stands on a different footing. Such an essential part of religion
is constitutionally protected under Article 25."
The court said, "The place of birth of
Lord Rama is not to be searched elsewhere in Ayodhya but it has to be in the
disputed site or near about is evident from pleadings of the Muslim parties,
which shows that they also do not dispute the existence of the place of birth
of Lord Rama along with the temple, though an attempt is made that such temple
is not the disputed one but one existing on the north side at about 200 metres."
The court went to the extent of holding that
since the birthplace itself could be a 'deity' without the idol of Lord Rama
and Hindus, believing the place in dispute as birthplace of Lord Rama, had
been continuously visiting it for the purpose of worship, "it is evident
that the status of place as deity had continued."
The court said, "A deity is not damaged
or comes to end due to destruction in any manner, since the spirit of Supreme
Being continue to exist and it will not disappear, particularly when the deity
is Swayambhu, i.e. self-created. The property in dispute, therefore, has a
dual character. Firstly, being birthplace of Lord Rama, as per the beliefs
of Hindus, it is a Swayambhu deity and would continue so long as the place
continues, but then, being an immovable property, it also has its nature as
property. The question of owning the property is different than the status."
The court said: "Various religious literature,
which have been placed before us, show that Ayodhya is believed to be the
place of birth of Lord Rama. It did not specify any particular area or a particular
place in Ayodhya. It is quite possible that the entire city may be held to
be very pious and sacred on account of some occurrence of divinity or religious
spirituality. It may happen that a small place may attain such a status. For
example, the tree under which Gautam Buddha attained divine knowledge is considered
to be extremely sacred and pious place by Buddhists. In a country like ours,
where unity in diversity is its characteristic, the existence of people or
other faith, existence of their place of religion at a place, in wider sense
as its known, cannot be ruled out and by necessity they will have to exist,
live and survive together."
"There are several cities in India which
are considered to be the place which may attain such a status. We are of the
view that the historicity of Lord Rama cannot be restricted by any preconceived
notion since, if any such attempt is made not only in respect to Lord Rama
but in other matters also, that may result in havoc and will amount to playing
with the sentiments and belief of millions of people which are bestowed upon
them from generations to generation and time immemorial."
