Going by the record, it would appear that when the perpetrators of the violence are minorities, the process of justice is swift. When they form part of organised Hindu militant groups, the fabled long arm of the law barely moves.
These lines could well have been from 26 years ago when Mahant Avaidyanath, Adityanath’s mentor, the head of the Gorakhnath Math and one of the leading lights of the Sangh Parivar’s temple movement, had hit out at the “delay”.
By refusing review, the court has refused to consider the question of whether the freedom of religion protects only practices of particular significance, and not all religious practices. The question of comparative significance of religious practices also remains untouched.
The UP government said that the Allahabad High Court ruling that ordered three-way division of the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya had made it clear that its judgment was “not based upon Dr M Ismail Faruqui judgment”.
Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for M Siddiq — an appellant in the suit who has died but is represented through his legal heir — told the top court that “it is extremely important that people should restrain themselves, especially the Hindu side. So far as the Hindu side is concerned, it has not observed restraint”.