Jump to content

Ayodhya : Supreme Court Orders Mediation to Settle Dispute, Panel of 3 Mediators Appointed

Singh bling

By Singh bling
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Alam_dar Enthusiast

Alam_dar

Posted
Posted

Bad decision by the Supreme Court and running away from it's responsibilities. 

 

It is the 2nd time I am watching Indian Supreme Court is showing deviation under the pressure of the RW. First one when the court didn't give the clear verdict about the beef, that it is personal choice and animals could never have a preference upon the humans. At that time too Supreme court made a political decision instead of a decision based upon the Justice. And according to the political decision, gave this right to the states to make their own laws on beef ban, although such ban was totally against the basic human rights. 

 

Again, in case of Babari Mosque, the Court had to take the firm stand according to the constitution.

 

Either constitution is above the religion, or the religion is above the constitution in India. Supreme Court failed badly once again. 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
someone Collaborator

someone

Posted
Posted

The first lawsuit was filed in 1855, and so it's been 164 years of legal battle and mediate time. Today was not just another delay, but reaffirmation of an unofficial verdict to maintain the status quo. The status quo obviously is complete injustice to one side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
someone Collaborator

someone

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It has to be solved by the legislature, BJP is running away because of elections. SC doesn't have the maturity and consensus in deciding in matters of faith. Let the mandate decide, why only leave it to three wise men!

And do BJP have the numbers? They couldn't even pass the triple talaq despite court ruling. The question should be why are Hindus still voting for Congress who questioned Lord Ram's existence itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Muloghonto Experienced

Muloghonto

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Bad decision by the Supreme Court and running away from it's responsibilities. 

 

It is the 2nd time I am watching Indian Supreme Court is showing deviation under the pressure of the RW. First one when the court didn't give the clear verdict about the beef, that it is personal choice and animals could never have a preference upon the humans. At that time too Supreme court made a political decision instead of a decision based upon the Justice. And according to the political decision, gave this right to the states to make their own laws on beef ban, although such ban was totally against the basic human rights. 

 

Again, in case of Babari Mosque, the Court had to take the firm stand according to the constitution.

 

Either constitution is above the religion, or the religion is above the constitution in India. Supreme Court failed badly once again. 

 

 

 

 

 

You have no idea how law works and as usual , take liberties inserting your anti-India bias into the opacity of a legal verdict. 

Idiot. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mishra Mentor

mishra

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

You have no idea how law works and as usual , take liberties inserting your anti-India bias into the opacity of a legal verdict. 

Idiot. 

 

On a major sensitive Hindu religion subject of Ram Janmabhoomi, The top person appointed by SC to take the call is a "Muslim" and still foreign outside Muslim person complain. I want to see how Muslims will react if a Jew is appointed to head a panel discussing if part of land where Mecca is built belongs to Jews

Edited by mishra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clarke Mentor

Clarke

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Bad decision by the Supreme Court and running away from it's responsibilities. 

 

It is the 2nd time I am watching Indian Supreme Court is showing deviation under the pressure of the RW. First one when the court didn't give the clear verdict about the beef, that it is personal choice and animals could never have a preference upon the humans. At that time too Supreme court made a political decision instead of a decision based upon the Justice. And according to the political decision, gave this right to the states to make their own laws on beef ban, although such ban was totally against the basic human rights. 

 

Again, in case of Babari Mosque, the Court had to take the firm stand according to the constitution.

 

Either constitution is above the religion, or the religion is above the constitution in India. Supreme Court failed badly once again. 

 

It is the umpteenth time we are observing your illogical ramblings. There is something called article 48 in the Constitution of India, which you have no clue about like most things. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clarke Mentor

Clarke

Posted
Posted

I agree with the court when they say that history can't be reversed. 

 

I also think that minority won't be giving up anything if they don't dispute the holiest sites such as Ayodhya and not support the destructive ideas of centuries old invaders. 

 

This demanding proof business is also absurd in a religious context. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
randomGuy Mentor

randomGuy

Posted
Posted (edited)

My thoughts

 

1. Muslim side doesn't want bjp to take any credit for temple. No electoral gain etc.

 

2. They too realise that things can't go on forever, such is the public pressure. So the decision in favour of temple should come soon, I think immediately after elections.

 

3. Judges didn't want to risk the decision on themselves, hence this decision for mediation. But I feel the outcome would be the same, i.e. for temple to be built at disputed land and mosque in a distant place to keep Muslim side happy too.

Edited by randomGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alam_dar Enthusiast

Alam_dar

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Clarke said:

 

It is the umpteenth time we are observing your illogical ramblings. There is something called article 48 in the Constitution of India, which you have no clue about like most things. 

I request you to please read the full history. 

 

Earlier, the High Court of Gujrat had held that the Gujrat's government order imposed unreasonable restrictions on the Fundamental Rights.

 

Thus Supreme court also got the full chance to declare this article against the basic human rights, but it didn't and took the political decision and told that states could themselves make laws about it. 

 

If constitution of India claims it to be based on Secularism, then this article is totally against the Secular Values and the writers of the constitution made a mistake by imposing the will of the majority upon the fundamental human rights. 

 

Please also understand, it is demanded to "act upon" the constitution and the decision of Supreme Court, but still you get the full liberty to have different opinion, and criticized any article of constitution or the decision of the Supreme Court, and then make people aware of it, and then change the constitution in the future.  Therefore, it is in itself against the law to take the right of opinion away from anyone and disallow him to differ and criticize the constitution or the decision of the court. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Clarke Mentor

Clarke

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

I request you to please read the full history. 

 

Earlier, the High Court of Gujrat had held that the Gujrat's government order imposed unreasonable restrictions on the Fundamental Rights.

 

Thus Supreme court also got the full chance to declare this article against the basic human rights, but it didn't and took the political decision and told that states could themselves make laws about it. 

 

If constitution of India claims it to be based on Secularism, then this article is totally against the Secular Values and the writers of the constitution made a mistake by imposing the will of the majority upon the fundamental human rights. 

 

Please also understand, it is demanded to "act upon" the constitution and the decision of Supreme Court, but still you get the full liberty to have different opinion, and criticized any article of constitution or the decision of the Supreme Court, and then make people aware of it, and then change the constitution in the future.  Therefore, it is in itself against the law to take the right of opinion away from anyone and disallow him to differ and criticize the constitution or the decision of the court. 

Wtf does beef have to do with secularism ? Do the abrahmic faiths have a religious duty to consume beef failing which they have sinned ? The liberty is there at state level. Go to Goa, Kerala, NE etc to consume beef. I don't think you seem to understand law & Constitution and simply hang on self defined freedom as the be all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...