My dear Santoshbab, It does take quite a number on man-hours to read and then digest judgments of this nature. I wish there were more than 24 hours in each day.
Based on my present knowledge and reading, my semi-lay sense is as follows: [a] This is a Land Law issue - strictly looking at land-ownership issues. Land = property and structures et al. [b] Prevention of criminal acts is the matter for Parliament to legislate. I believe that, at this moment, in India, it is illegal to destroy or deface/damage Heritage buildings and other structures. Buildings/structures older than 100 years old normally qualify for Heritage status. [c] The person or persons responsible directly or indirectly by way on incitement should be prosecuted on the basis of existing law. [d] That would be one step towards the prevention of such activities in the future. I do not believe that the Court can legislate in lieu of Parliament - notwithstanding the fact that common law is judge made law based on any case at hand. (I read somewhere about some constitutional amendment to solve the present impasse. I will ignore that point ALSO because only dictatorships make amendments/legislation retroactive) [e] The Court cannot "make" criminal law in a case which deals with land law. ps 1: As long as vandals are allowed to get away with vandalism, be it in Fontainhas or Ayodhya, Vandalism will continue. Pre-1961 vandalism (in Goa) and pre-1947 vandalism (in former British India or the various kingdoms) provide no excuse for post 1961/post 1947 vandalism - according to Indian law - as I know it. That is why I suggested that the Heritage church on Anjediva will be 'allowed to collapse by way of constructive neglect'. When it is convenient, the 'powers' will find 'Security Interests' to indiscriminately tap our phones and even, perhaps, place cameras in our bedrooms ..... let alone prevent access to one of the oldest churches visited by Goans. In contrast, the Amarnath Cave Temple, Khir Bhavani Temple and Maha Saraswathi Temple in Kashmir or the Tannot Mata temple in Jaisalmer are not 'NO GO' areas because of proximity to Pakistan, are they? Are not Pakistan and Kashmir two of our major security risks? BTW: The Tannot Mata is presently being manned by the BSF ....but devotees are still able to visit the temple. ps 2: Forget politicians, armies and governments, even members of close-knit families destroy each other for the sake of land. This was the most distressing part of studying Land Law. Such is the lure of property. good wishes jc. Santosh Helekar <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Josebab, I agree that the judgment is confusing. My only lay sense from what I could glean from it is that it is an imperfect compromise. What I would have liked to see is if the judges had found a way to make some ruling that would prevent Hindu extremists and others like them from demolishing existing historical or religious structures in the future.
