Jay AmbadiNov 10, 2019
People comparing Supreme Court judgments in Ayodhya and Sabarimala are either ignorant of the facts or acting so!
In Sabarimala, the issue was of faith vs constitutional rights and internal.
In Ayodhya, a property dispute is decided on the basis of faith instead of facts!
Show threadJay Ambadi
In Sabarimala the essential issue is whether a deity has a right to give only conditional access to the shrine or does the constitutional principles of equality overrides such a right of the deity. It is purely a matter between a deity and its believers.
Nov 10, 2019 at 5:50amMoa
Show threadJoshNov 10, 2019
@Jay_Ambadi can't we say same abt ayodhya verdict too? it was between faith and constitutional rights? and faith won.. but in sabarimala, constitutional rights won..
Show threadJay AmbadiNov 10, 2019
@josh_se No, we can’t say that. In Ayodhya, it was an appeal from a Civil suit in which different parties claimed ownership of same property. Faith or Constitutional rights has (or should have had) nothing to do with such civil suits.
Show threadJoshNov 10, 2019
@Jay_Ambadi yeah, agree to that, it shouldn't have anything to do with faith..but it did unfortunately.. so, these are two cases where faith was in consideration, but got different verdicts, one was pro faith, one against it..Different yardsticks?