Pardon me, judges open Pandora's box

Was it difficult to see through the motive of the plaintiffs (who sought to worship Hindu deities that were allegedly present in the Gyanvapi mosque) and the consequences of allowing the prayers in the suit? In my view, the Supreme Court should have invoked its powers under Article 141 of the Constitution to do 'complete justice, called the suit to its file, and dismissed the suit holding that the Act that was honoured for 30 years should be upheld at all costs

- P Chidambaram

I HAVE HAD a ringside view of the making of many laws. I always impressed upon the draftspersons of the Ministry of Law to keep the Bill short, crisp and clear.

One such law was The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. In my view, it is short-only 8 Sections. It was crisp it had one objective and that was to freeze the character of a place of worship as it existed at the dawn of Independence. It was clear- no 'ifs' or 'buts' or 'notwithstandings' or 'without prejudices' I would urge everyone to read Section 3 and Section 4(1) the Act, which are as under: 3.Bar of conversion of places of worship: No person shall convert any place of worship of any religious denomination or any section thereof into a place of worship of a different section of the same religious denomination or of a different religious denomination or any section thereof.

4. Declaration as to the religious character of certain places of worship and bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc.(1) It is hereby declared that the religious character of a place of worship existing on the 15th day of August, 1947 shall continue to be the same as it existed on that day.

The only exception was the place of worship commonly known as Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid situated in Ayodhya because there was an ongoing dispute.