The demolishers of Babri Masjid try to mislead people by equating Ayodhya dispute with Shah Bano case, which was an internal matter of Muslims. Shah Bano case was not one of immoral and illegal possession of a temple by creating a dispute over it. In fact it was a case of misinterpretation of the Qur’ān by the Supreme Court against the unanimous interpretations of Sunni and Shia Ulema during the last 1400 years. Muslims (Sunni and Shia both) peacefully protested against the judgement and got their grievance redressed through legislation, which is a democratic and constitutional measure.
On the contrary, the Supreme Court, earlier in the famous case of Krishna Singh versus Mathura Ahir, AIR 1980, S.C, 707-712 had ruled that Part III of the Constitution does not touch upon the personal laws of the parties. In applying the personal laws of the parties the judge should not have introduced his own concept of modern times, but should have enforced the law as derived from recognised and authoritative source of Hindu laws. In sharp contrast to this verdict, the Supreme Court had taken an all together different view in Shah Bano case. How far was this judicious? Why double standards?
G. Hasnain Kaif
Bhandara, M.S.