.

This piece is a response to points included in this piece attributed to Gautam Bhatia, dated 2019 Nov 18. This piece is neither a defense nor an endorsement of the subject of Dr. Bhatia's piece, the former chief justice of India (and any of his judgments, positions etc). It is limited to what I perceive as a flaw in Bhatia's argumentation and a call-out of what I see as one of his politico-legal slants. Observation 1 : NPWAPCG (no place where aggrieved people could go) argumentation Let us take Bhatia seriously, break his argument down, to see how it plays out: The court should not have taken over the Executive's task The Executive should have done the task and in that process, if the Executive violated rights the aggrieved could appeal to: the court ! In effect, Bhatia is taking the Supreme Court to task for its more direct involvement so that the same organisation—the Supreme Court—could have, later , been approached for grievances! If the Supreme Court

Faizan Mustafa:  "Before 16th century there is no single Sanskrit or indigenous Indian account which either treats  अयोध्या ( ayōdhyā)  as holy and sacred because of birth of Lord  राम (R āma)  or says that there was some  जन्म-स्थान ( janma-sthāna) which people used to visit " Mahābhārata (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute critical edition) ततस्तैरेव सहितो रामः सौमित्रिणा सह  यथागतेन मार्गेण प्रययौ स्वपुरं प्रति  अयोध्यां स समासाद्य पुरीं राष्ट्रपतिस्ततः  भरताय हनूमन्तं दूतं प्रस्थापयत्तदा (3.275.58-59) Gitapress translation:  1.  Rāmāyaṇa in the Aṣṭādaśavidyā Itihāsa Mahābhārata 2.  Rāghava in the Aṣṭādaśavidyā Itihāsa Mahābhārata Diana Eck : "The careful historical and textual work of scholars has placed the beginnings of the actual worship of Lord Rāma in Ayodhy ā in the eleventh or twelfth century C.E." (Kindle location (7994 of 11569)).  Eck cites Bakker ( Bakker, Hans. Ayodhyā. Groningen: Egbert Forsten, 1986), who has