Video editor: Mohd Irshad Alam
“For how long can the Supreme Court say we will hear it in good time?” asked retired Supreme Court Justice Madan Lokur, as he pointed out that there are a whole host of cases – “whether it is sedition or whether cases pertaining to the Places of Worship Act, 1991” – that require urgent hearing.
On being asked if the Supreme Court, while balancing interests, is failing to address legal questions, Justice Lokur said:
“It is not only a question of balancing interests, but also of balancing rights. The Supreme Court has not taken a decision as yet on some of these issues, but it is high time that they start speeding their hearing on some of these matters .”
As a barrage of similar ‘mandir-masjid’ disputes, including those pertaining to Gyanvapi, Shahi-Idgah, and even the Qutub Minar, take over the courts, The Quint asked Justice Lokur if the courts can do anything to quell the inundation.
In response to this, Justice Lokur pointed out that “anybody and everybody has a right to access the court,” but added that if there seems to be an “organised effort” to inundate the court with such disputes, “of course something needs to be done about it, because then this system will completely break down.”
He, however, noted, that “unfortunately, the law doesn’t take care of this.”
“If there was a law which says that after 10 cases, we will not entertain the eleventh such case, then things would be different. But the law doesn’t say anything like this,” he added.
Noting that the Supreme Court cannot pass a blanket order, the former top court judge said:
“But if a case does come before the Supreme Court with regard to one of these places, then the Supreme Court can say, ‘alright, since we are seized of the matter, other courts will not entertain a petition (in this regard).”
He also added that when the Gyanvapi matter first came to the Supreme Court, the court perhaps did not anticipate that a situation may emerge where so many more similar cases would be filed.
“The Supreme Court could have intervened at that stage, but perhaps, the Supreme Court did not anticipate it,” Justice Lokur said.
Can the Ayodhya Judgment Safeguard the Places of Worship Act?
On being asked if the segment on non retrogression in the Ayodhya judgment help safeguard the Places of Worship Act (which expressly bars conversion of any place of worship into anything different from the religious character of the place as it was on 15 August 1947), Justice Lokur said:
“If the matter comes up, certainly yes. You see, the Ayodhya judgment is a judgment of five learned judges of the Supreme Court. So it cannot be wished away.”
Pointing out that the judgment is a binding law, he added: “So as and when an issue does arise in any of these courts, they are bound by the judgment unless the judgment is set aside by a larger bench of seven judges.”
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)