A Welcome SC Verdict On Ram-Janmbhoomi
The Chief Justice of India CJI should be complimented for taking all necessary precautions before pronouncing much-awaited and sensitive verdict on Ram-Janmbhoomi. The CJI, in an unprecedented manner, held a meeting at his chamber with concerned senior officers of UP responsible for ensuring law and order in the state. Furthermore, the verdict was delivered on Saturday rather than normal working day between Monday and Friday, thus ensuring that Saturday and Sunday would provide a cool-down period. Now, that five-member Supreme Court bench has, through its unanimous verdict on the most sensitive issue paved the way for construction of a grand temple at Ram Janmbhoomi in Ayodhya under a government-managed trust, the Indian Muslim community should respect religious sentiments of Hindus by extending support for construction of the temple at birth-place of Lord Ram. Even though Apex Court declined Shia community to be a party in the case, yet their suggestion for alternative land of five-acres for construction of a grand mosque in Ayodhya was accepted. It will be even more welcome gesture if offer comes for suo motu shifting of mosques from Vishwanath Temple in Kashi and Krishna-Janmbhoomi in Mathura. Any such gesture will make India a glorious example of communal harmony. Grand mosques then can be made with co-operation of government and Hindu-organisations elsewhere at Kashi and Mathura also.
SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL, DELHI
Removal Of SPG Cover Justified
Congress party is unnecessarily protesting removal of super-costly SPG-cover for family-members of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. Decision of Union Home Ministry stands justified because of the reluctance shown by Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi in availing of SPG security-cover evidently to hide their private visits in India and abroad. Sonia Gandhi, Priyanka Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi did not avail bullet-proof cars provided at government-cost 50, 339 and 1892 times respectively between the years 2015 to May 2019. The three did not take SPG-security along with them during foreign visits 24, 78 and 143 times respectively in the said period. Rahul Gandhi preferred privacy to security when he did not take SPG-security 143 out of total 156 visits since the year 1991, thus establishing that SPG security-cover for them was for just status-symbol rather than necessity.
For these reasons, it was sheer wastage of public-money to provide super-costly SPG brigade to these three. Union Home Ministry has rightly decided to trim their security cover to Z-plus which will provide both security and privacy to the family-members of Rajiv Gandhi.
MADHU AGRAWAL, DELHI
Flare-up On A Trivial Issue
‘Justice for all’ and ‘Justice denied is justice buried’ are increasingly becoming clichés in Indian context. Institutions responsible for upholding, and reinforcing, people›s beliefs seem to be on shaky foundation and slippery ground. The lawyers and the police form cogwheels of what can be termed people›s ‘engines of hope and happiness.’ Whatever said and done, lawyers have formed the fulcrum of ‘justice dispensation’ and policemen have effectively played their supplementary part. The reverse holds true for the law enforcement aspect. Due to the nature of their respective occupations, generally both lawyers and police enjoy a cordial relationship. Or is this an overstatement? What happened in Delhi should dramatically alter this equation. A trivial issue, perfect enough to be amicably thrashed out then and there, flared up into a law and order challenge. Parking of a lawyer›s vehicle in the court premises, correct or not, could have been solved with wry smiles and friendly banter.
Even the district judge, and other judicial officers, had to beat a hasty retreat sensing the lawyers› mood. The Delhi High Court›s expeditious decision to hear out the lawyers angered the police to no end. Then followed the unprecedented scene: the Delhi police›s near revolt against their own officers and the lawyers. In other words, they were taking potshots at the system which, they felt, has been totally unfair to them. It is a common knowledge that the police are an overexploited lot in India. They have to offer their salutations to seniors, politicians and the courts.
A slight indiscipline; and they are gone. Under the circumstances, it is imperative for the superiors to adopt a flexible approach towards the juniors. They should shield them, and not put them to the sword. Lawyers form an impactful chunk of the legal fraternity alright, but the role of the police in transforming the ideas of the courts cannot be sidetracked. It is an irony that the lawyers, who form an integral part of conciliatory procedures, are loath to thrash the issue across the talking table. ‘Touch me not’ demeanour will help none.
Ganapathi Bhat, Akola