Opinion: Justice Verma's remarks unsolicited
By Ram Madhav
It came as an unpleasant surprise to read the comments of the former Chief Justice of India J S Verma on the Ayodhya case. He was reported to have objected to the way the 1994 Judgment of the Supreme Court Bench in respect of the government's reference on Ayodhya was being interpreted.
His specific objection was to the premise that the judgment states inter-alia that the adjoining undisputed land of around 67 acres acquired by the government in 1993 may be returned to its original owners if the government feels that such a step wouldn't in any way hinder the effective enjoyment of the ownership rights by the party that wins the main title suit.
Justice Verma was reported to have told news agencies that "it was wrong to say the original ownership continued once the land titles have been vested with the Centre". He even reportedly lamented that: "his judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute, delivered nine years ago, was being mis-constructed". A scrupulous reading of the judgment however suggests that justice Verma was, to put it mildly, trying to give a new interpretation of his own to it.
Contrary to the reports suggesting that it was 'his' judgment, justice Verma was a member of the five-judge Bench of the Supreme Court that had delivered the 1994 judgment. The Bench was headed by the then CJI M N Venkatachalaiah and the other members on the Bench were justice J S Verma, justice A M Ahmadi, justice S P Bharucha and justice G N Ray.
Before going into the facts of the matter, it is not out of place to raise a very fundamental question of propriety of a former judge trying to reinterpret a judgment, especially at a time when the matter is before the apex court. As for as we know, justice Verma is not a practising lawyer now and hence the possibility of his holding brief for one of the parties in the litigation doesn't arise.
It is generally understood that a judgment once delivered becomes the judgment of the court, not of any individual judge. Also in this case, the judgment in question was not the one delivered by justice Verma alone. There were two other judges involved in it. It was a majority judgment with which two of the 5 judges namely justice Ahmadi and justice Bharucha had disagreed. Hence if at all the judgment needs reinterpretation it can be done by all the three judges only, not by any one of them.
Justice Verma's unsavoury outbursts cause enormous damage to the reputation of the institution of judiciary and also the dignity of the high offices he had held before. One would like to know if justice Verma was not setting a very wrong precedent. What will happen if all the former judges start doing the same thing? Every judgment contains references to previous judgments. What will happen if those former judges start pronouncing their own interpretations publicly every time those matters come before the courts?
More importantly, doesn't justice Verma have faith in his brother judges, who are hearing the petition of the government in the apex court? Was he trying to influence them by issuing public statements like this?
Another aspect that makes Justice Verma's utterances leery is the fact that justice Verma was completely silent last year when the same question was referred to the Supreme Court around same time. He must have kept quiet assuming that the courts knew what they were doing and brother judges were competent enough to understand what was the meaning and import of the '94 judgment. Has his confidence eroded in the competence of the judges who are hearing the case now? Justice Verma is a highly learned legal luminary. It can't be construed that he is unaware of these factors, which makes his remarks cast a shadow of suspicion on his intentions if not integrity.
Coming to the majority judgment of 1994 in question, of which justice Verma was also a member, it had upheld the move of the government to acquire the undisputed 67 acres which is in the vicinity of the disputed site saying: "…. In the event of the Muslims succeeding in the adjudication of the dispute requiring the disputed structure to be handed over to the Muslim community, their success should not be thwarted by denial of proper access to, and enjoyment of rights in the disputed area by exercise of rights of ownership of the adjacent properties." Fair enough. The concern of the court is understandable. It wants to ensure that in case the final judgment on the disputed site goes in favour of the Muslims, they should be in a position to enjoy it freely.
It is noteworthy that the judgment explicitly states that there was no dispute over the land acquired by the government adjoining the disputed site. "The land acquired under the Act is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims. A large part thereof comprises of properties of Hindus of which the title is not even in dispute," it reads.
What will happen to the land finally? The judgment had recommended that: "… at a later stage when the exact area acquired which is needed for achieving the professed purpose of acquisition can be determined, it would not merely be permissible but also desirable that the superfluous excess area is released from acquisition and reverted to its earlier owner."
Not over. The court was aware of the fact that the dispute could go on perpetually. Hence it states towards the end: "The embargo on transfer till adjudication, and in terms thereof, to be read in Section 6 (1) relates only to the disputed area, while transfer of any part of the excess area, retention of which till adjudication of the dispute relating to the disputed area may not be necessary, is not inhibited till then, since the acquisition of the excess area is absolute subject to the duty to restore it to the owner if its retention is found to be unnecessary, as indicated."
It is clear from the above quotes from the 1994 judgment that if the government thinks that a portion of the acquired land can be returned to its owners without affecting the final judgment in the case, it has not only a right but also duty-bound to do so. It is this question, which is central to the government's application in the Supreme Court. All that the government has asked the apex court was vacation of the status quo order passed by it on the entire land including the 67 acres of undisputed land as it goes against the 1994 judgment.
Another interesting and important matter to be observed here is that the status quo order was passed by a three-member Bench in 2002 while the 1994 judgment was by a five-member Bench. It needs to be looked into by the legal experts as to whether a smaller Bench can issue an order that goes against the letter and spirit of the judgment of a larger Bench.
We have full faith in the wisdom of the judiciary, the one that delivered the 1994 judgment or the one that is looking into the matter afresh. Justice Verma, by his unsolicited utterances, has betrayed a feeling that he doesn't seem to have such a faith.
What do you think of this article ? Click here to post your view.
Do you want to voice your opinion on something you strongly feel about?
Email:
editor@team.indiainfo.com
Note: Public Opinion is a section that features contributions by the users of
indiainfo.com. The views expressed by the authors of this section are their own
and indiainfo.com and its affiliate sites are not responsible or liable for the same.
This note is in addition to the terms of service and disclaimer of indiainfo.com
More Public Opinions:
We are all Americans, It is my birthright!
Why is US plunging into language of common thug?
New political party is the need of the hour
For once, explaining victory seemed so difficult!
Modi Wins... India Loses...
Veerappan kidnap: It could be Krishna next!
|
