It was probably the first time that someone had said that he would give preference to a hospital over a temple. In the 1990s, famous lawyer Nani Palkhiwala had for the first time demanded to build a hospital and school instead of "a temple or a mosque".

Famous lawyer Nani Palkhiwala's entry into the Ayodhya case took place in the year 1993 when the Ayodhya case reached the Supreme Court. After the demolition of Babri, the Central Government sought suggestions from the Supreme Court regarding Janmabhoomi under Article 143. Palkhiwala had openly opposed this step of the Centre.

Palkhiwala said that the court would never be able to do justice in this case. In such a situation, he should distance himself from this controversy.

Nani refused to advocate for the Muslim side

In 1994, when the case of M Siddiq vs Mahant Suresh Das and others reached the Supreme Court, the Muslim side approached Nana Palkhiwala to represent them. Muslim parties said that on behalf of Hindu side K. Parasaran will argue, hence there should be a big lawyer from our side also.

In an interview, Muslim side's advocate Zafaryab Jilani says - Babri Action Committee first contacted Palkhiwala at its level, but he refused to fight the case. He further says - Meanwhile, we came to know that Palkhiwala is a good friend of film star Dilip Kumar, so we reached out to Dilip Kumar. After listening to us, Dilip Kumar called the palanquin seller.

According to Jilani, when Kumar recommended Palkhiwala to fight the case, Palkhiwala also refused him. When asked the reason, Palkhiwala said- I am busy with budget work and will not be able to give time to the case.

M Venkatachaliah became the Chief Justice of India in February 1993. Meanwhile, Narasimha Rao's government sought opinion from the Supreme Court on the Babri dispute. Palkhiwala opposed this step of the Rao government.

Palkhiwala said that the judge himself remains ignorant about the matters of land and archaeology. Then how will you be able to take a decision on your birthplace?

Palkhiwala told Justice Venketchalaiah that you should refuse to hear this case, because you will not be able to do justice in it. Palkhiwala gave 4 arguments behind this.

1. Courts are not qualified on the basis of training or experience to hear birthplace disputes. He can hear a case only on questions of law or fact.

2. This is a political issue and if the court starts hearing on it, its image and position will be weakened. People will feel that the court has covered up the Ayodhya issue.

3. The Center can reverse your decision, because the Center has this right. The Center is not bound to accept your decision. In such a situation, only one vocal party will benefit from this.

4. Many leaders from the Hindu side have raised questions on the court. The Leader of Opposition has clearly said that how can the court decide where the temple will be built and where not? This means that if you do not give a decision in his favor, the uproar will not stop.
 
Palkhiwala gave 3 formulas of agreement

After the demolition of Babri, the Narasimha Rao government talked about building a mosque again at the disputed site. Movements were already going on regarding the temple. At that time Palkhiwala gave 3 formulas regarding suggestions in the Babri dispute.

Hindus and Muslims should forget the issue of Ayodhya and build a garden and a school at the disputed site. This will educate both their children.
The government should acquire the land around the disputed site and develop a rural colony there, which should be named Rainbow Colony.

If both the parties do not agree on this, then the government should get a human temple constructed at the disputed site. Like Gandhi Ashram, all religions should be discussed here.

What happened in Babri and Ram Janmabhoomi dispute?

In 2018, the Supreme Court decided to start hearing the Babri-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute on a daily basis. In the constitutional bench of 5 judges, fierce arguments were given from the Hindu and Muslim sides. This hearing continued continuously for 40 days.

After this the Supreme Court gave its verdict. The Supreme Court accepted Ramlala's right over the disputed site. However, the court also directed the Center to give 5 acres of land in Ayodhya to the Muslim side for the construction of the mosque.

The court said in its decision that it could not be proved that Babri Masjid was built by demolishing any temple. Therefore demolishing the mosque was wrong. The court further said in the decision that the Muslim side failed to prove its ownership rights over the disputed site.

After this decision of the court, the Center established the Ram Mandir Trust. This trust is getting the work of construction of Ram temple done in Ayodhya.

All accused of Babri demolition acquitted

A year after the Supreme Court verdict on the land dispute, a special CBI court also acquitted 32 accused in the Babri demolition. The names of people like Lal Krishna Advani, Vinay Katiyar, Murali Manohar Joshi, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti and Champat Rai were included in the list of these accused.

While giving the verdict, the CBI court judge said that the structure was not demolished as part of a conspiracy, but the incident happened suddenly. The court termed the evidence presented by CBI as inadequate.

Interestingly, CBI did not challenge this decision further.

Nani Palkhiwala

Born in 1920 in Bombay (now Mumbai), Palkhivala started his career as a lawyer in 1946. Palkhiwala first associated with famous lawyer Jamsetji Behramji Kanga and then started practicing on his own.

In the early days of his law practice, Palkhiwala used to give priority to cases of public interest. His strong advocacy in the case of RC Kapoor vs Government of India shook the government. After the victory in this case, Indira Gandhi came on the back foot.

However, he soon overturned this decision of the Supreme Court by making changes in the Constitution. Palkhiwala also argued the case of Keshavanand Bharti vs Government of India.

It is said that the decision of this case united the opposition leaders against Indira. Shortly after the verdict of this case, emergency was imposed in the country.

Palkhiwala writes in his biography We the People – "4 months after the imposition of Emergency, Indira Gandhi formed a constitutional bench of 13 judges. This bench was told that the decision of Keshavanand Bharti vs Government of India should be overturned".

According to Palkhiwala, when he got information about this, he ran to the court and strongly opposed it. As soon as the court saw his protest, it came into action and got ready for the hearing. When the government got wind of this, it decided to dissolve this bench itself.

During the 1990s, Palkhiwala opposed the Mandal movement and the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. Palkhiwala said that the leaders are fanning such issues for their personal interests. Palkhiwala had written an article at that time saying that "we should consider abolishing the Constitution because of democracy and the Constitution, some people are not responsible even though they are responsible".

Share this News