If no compromise, court will solve Ram Temple issue: Swamy

May 4, 2017

Lucknow, May 4: If Muslims do not want a compromise on the Ram Temple issue, the court is there to resolve the land dispute in Ayodhya, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy on Thursday said, drawing sharp retort from the Babri Masjid Action Committee.

"If they don't want a compromise, the court is there... We have already won in the Allahabad High Court, which has ruled that Lord Rama was born at a place of central dome as per faith. If you talk of Hindu-Muslim unity, a mosque can be constructed anywhere, but it cannot be constructed where Lord Rama took birth," Swamy, also a Rajya Sabha MP, told reporters after his meeting with Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Lucknow, sounding confident of legal victory in the matter.

He, however, declined to divulge what transpired at his meeting with Adityanath, a hardline Hindutva leader and vocal proponent of the temple.

Swamy said, "There was a temple where a mosque was constructed... The clerics, who are adamant, should know that."

"There is a way (of settlement) through the Supreme Court. I have a fundamental right under Article 25 of the Constitution to worship at the place of my faith. I am fighting for my fundamental right, while they are fighting for property right," he said, sounding confident of legal victory.

When asked how a settlement could be reached when both the parties were not in agreement, he said, "Samjhauta nahi karna chahte hain to phir court to hai hi (If they don't want to compromise, then the court is there to resolve the issue)."

However, convenor of Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) Zafaryab Zilani, when asked to comment on the matter, said, "Swamy should not threaten Muslims. We have faith in judiciary and we are law-abiding citizens and will respect whatever the court rules."

Zilani had earlier said, "With Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath at the helm of affairs, there is no hope that justice will prevail with the Muslims. Both of them have been BJP workers and supporters of Ram temple movement."

Swamy had recently urged the Muslim community to support construction of the Ram Temple at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.

"Ram temple can only be built at one place in Ayodhya where the structure of a temple was found at the disputed site following investigation by the Archaeological Survey of India," Swamy had said.

The BJP MP claimed that the Allahabad High Court had made it clear that the structure of a temple was found at the disputed site.

In September 2010, a three-judge Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court had stated that Lord Rama was born under the central dome of the makeshift temple and Hindus have the right to worship there.

Subsequently, the apex court had stayed the implementation of the HC decision. The case is pending since then.

"Babri Masjid was built after the temple was demolished and the Hindu community has been demanding construction of the Ram temple for a long time," Swamy had said.

"If the issue is settled amicably, it will be all right, otherwise we will enact a law to construct a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya when we get majority in the Rajya Sabha by April, 2018," he had asserted.

Swamy, who was asked by the Supreme Court to talk to all parties in the dispute, said he had discussions with Muslim leaders — AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi and Babri Masjid Action Committee convener Zafaryab Jilani — over the issue.

"The Muslim leaders did not agree to a bilateral negotiation but wanted mediation of the Supreme Court," he had said.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has already rejected the Supreme Court's suggestion for an out-of-court settlement of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute and said that only a verdict by the apex court will be acceptable to it.

"No out-of-court settlement is acceptable to us," AIMPLB General Secretary Maulana Wali Rehmani has said.

On March 21, the apex court had suggested an out-of-court settlement of the dispute at Ayodhya, observing that issues of "religion and sentiments" can be best resolved through talks.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

‘Pay the worker before his sweat dries’: Madras High Court cites Prophet Muhammad’s teaching while ordering settlement of dues

News Network

December 21,2025

Invoking the teachings of Prophet Muhammad—“pay the worker before his sweat dries”—the Madras High Court has directed a municipal corporation to settle long-pending legal dues owed to a former counsel. The court observed that this principle reflects basic fairness and applies equally to labour and service-related disputes.

Justice G. R. Swaminathan made the observation while hearing a petition filed by advocate P. Thirumalai, who claimed that the Madurai City Municipal Corporation failed to pay him legal fees amounting to ₹13.05 lakh. Earlier, the High Court had asked the corporation to consider his representation. However, a later order rejected a major portion of his claim, prompting the present petition.

The court allowed Thirumalai to approach the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) and submit a list of cases in which he had appeared. It also directed the corporation to settle the verified fee bills within two months, without interest. The court noted that the petitioner had waited nearly 18 years before challenging the non-payment and that the corporation could not be fully blamed, as the fee bills were not submitted properly.

‘A Matter of Embarrassment’

Justice Swaminathan described it as a “matter of embarrassment” that the State has nearly a dozen Additional Advocate Generals. He observed that appointing too many law officers often leads to unnecessary allocation of work and frequent adjournments, as government counsel claim that senior officers are engaged elsewhere.

He expressed hope that such practices would end at least in the Madurai Bench of the High Court and added that Additional Advocate Generals should “turn a new leaf” from 2026 onwards.

‘Scandalously High Amounts’

While stating that the court cannot examine the exact fees paid to senior counsel or law officers, Justice Swaminathan stressed that good governance requires public funds to be used prudently. He expressed concern over the “scandalously high amounts” paid by government and quasi-government bodies to a few favoured law officers.

In contrast, the court noted that Thirumalai’s total claim was “a pittance” considering the large number of cases he had handled.

Background

Thirumalai served as the standing counsel for the Madurai City Municipal Corporation for more than 14 years, from 1992 to 2006. During this period, he represented the corporation in about 818 cases before the Madurai District Courts.

As the former counsel was unable to hire a clerk to obtain certified copies of judgments in all 818 cases, the court directed the District Legal Services Authority to collect the certified copies within two months. The court further ordered the corporation to bear the cost incurred by the DLSA and deduct that amount from the final settlement payable to the petitioner.

Comments