NEW DELHI: Legal experts have ruled out the possibility of the Government bringing a legislation to supersede the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment on the.
Ayodhya issue in view of its earlier undertaking to accept the highest judiciary’s view on the Presidential reference as binding. The noted Constitution expert, K.K. Venugopal’s, is of the view that though the Government has the powers to bring a bill in Parliament following the apex court’s rejection of the Presidential reference, it would not be proper if such a course of action is resorted to. “I think it would be inappropriate for the Government to pass a legislation after giving a solemn undertaking,” Venugopal’s said, Rajiv Dhawan, a senior Supreme Court lawyer, holds that any such billing Parliament would be against the spirit of the Supreme Court’s historic judgment. “Parliament cannot legislate to directly take away rights given by judicial verdictina specific context he said Any reversal of the judgment through legislation which takes away the rights of the communities would be void and unconstitutional, Dhawan said. “What the court has decreed is the common sense of calm, what the Government seems to display is a biased hurry,” he remarked.
The senior advocate suggested that “until the dispute of the site is determined the Government must restrict itself to a holding operation.” The Center, he says, should not be “largesse happy and distribute the adjacent land before the dispute is settled.” According to him, the judgment not only gives the right to the land owners to challenge the acquisition but also suggests that if the Government finds an area to be superfluous; such areas “must be restored to the undisputed owner.”
Article extracted from this publication >> November 4, 1994
