Any ordinance that will block one side from access to adjudication, while perpetuating the status quo as far as demolition is concerned is likely to be held unconstitutional
BS : On January 21, 2002 monks, priests and assorted sadhus of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) began a long march – the Sant Chetavni Yatra – from Ayodhya. Having journeyed through Uttar Pradesh, they planned to reach Delhi on January 27. Their demand was that the government “remove all obstacles” to the building of a Ram temple at the site of the former Babri Masjid by March 12, 2002.
Questions were raised in Parliament regarding the steps being taken to keep a check on the VHP’s designs. On March 7, 2002, the Minister of State for Home Affairs, I.D. Swami told Parliament “Under Section 7(2) of the Acquisition of Certain area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 and in compliance with the Supreme Court Judgement dated 24.10.1994 in the case of Dr. Ismail Faruqui & others vs. Union of India and others, relating to Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the Central Government as a statutory receiver is duty bound to maintain status quo as on 7.1.93 in the disputed area. The security arrangements at Ayodhya have been further strengthened and necessary steps taken to maintain law and order.”
That was in 2002. Cut to December, 2018, a similar situation looms. The VHP and its sister organizations have threatened ‘to take law into their own hands’ if the process for construction of the Ram Mandir is not expedited. Only this time, the calls of “Mandir wahinbanaenge”, from those outside government have been met with those of “Ordinance layenge” from those within.
No comments:
Post a Comment