New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Saturday in the judgement on the Ayodhya title dispute used special powers granted in the Article 142 of the Constitution.
This article was used twice by the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi while delivering the verdict. Though the disputed 2.77 acres of land was awarded for a temple, based on the evidence, the top court invoked the powers of Article 142 to grant 5 acres for a mosque in Ayodhya.
The Article 142 says: "Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe."
The five judge bench observed that there was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims. The top court observed that in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure a wrong committed should be remedied.
The bench also observed that the justice will not be served if the court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims,who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means, through means which do not favour secular nation governed by rule of law.
The court also invoked this Article to grant relief to Nirmohi Akhara and sought its inclusion on the trust formed by the Centre under Section 6 of the Ayodhya Act to construct Temple.
"In exercise of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that in the scheme to be framed by the Central Government, appropriate representation may be given in the Trust or body, to the Nirmohi Akhara in such manner as the Central Government deems fit," noted the court.
The Nirmohi Akhara suit has been dismissed by the top court, stating that it was barred by the statute of limitation.
This Article 142 was earlier invoked by the top court in October to annul the marriage of couple living separately for nearly 22 years.
