williams wrote:Santosh Ji is a political question, not a legal argument. I would say we let go of the 5-acre land, it is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. It gives something to save face and we move on to other things. The biggest gain, in this case, is it sets precedent for other such disputes.
They have set a bad precedent by giving Muslims twice the amount of land under dispute inspite of acknowledging that they have no claim. That the construction of mosque over ancient temple was illegal.
The land was given for following reasons
1. Muslims have "some" right to the land because of possession / adverse possession on a part at least, IIRC the inner courtyard. Record exist of Muslims offering prayer at the site from the time the case started sometime in the 19th century till about 1947(???) when the site was locked. BUT the the balance of rights
favored the Hindus and hence they were given full control of the RJB site. Remember, this taken up by the SC as a Land Title case decided on Title, Possession and Adverse possession and nothing else
2. After the instillation of Ram Lalla's murties inside the inner courtyard, the site was locked and the Muslims were prevented from exercising their right to offer prayer till date. After the locks were opened, Hindus were allowed to offer prayer while the Muslims were not.
3. Demolition of the existing structure on the RJB land where the act was held to be illegal and criminal.
To account for both of the above, the SC gave the Muslims a separate site. BTW, Hindus/VHP/RSS/BJP was always prepared to grant them an alternate site and help them build a Mosque in exchange of the Muslims vacating the site.
Note also, the SC in some measure, upheld the Allahabad findings even when it differed in the final resolution. Would you have rather preferred 1/3 (~ 0.92 acre) RJB land for the Muslims, as recommended by the HC, with a Mosque on the site and a common wall to the temple over 5 acres at some other place?
PS: Just from a few tweets I read. Did not do any research nor have read the judgement. Also Sai Deepak's comments on the RSTV program that I had posted previously on this very thread.
PPS: The moment one understand "balance of rights" everything else will be clear.