By - Jaslin Oberoi
Lords of Law
Introduction
This case is commonly referred to as the “Ayodhya Dispute Case.” This case was witnessed by all of Independent India’s Prime Ministers. This is a social, religious, historical, and political debate in India that revolves around a plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh which Hindus consider to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram. This was a long-running case, and on November 9th, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision.
A brief timeline from the start of the dispute to the conclusion of the dispute.
Muslims claim that the land was titled to them and that Mir Baqi built the mosque on it in 1528 on orders from Babur, the first Mughal emperor. In 1885 Mahant Raghubir Das filed a plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed structure, and the plea was rejected by the court.
According to some accounts, in 1949, some Muslims witnessed the installation of a Ram idol inside what was then a mosque. Both the Hindu and Muslim sides claimed ownership of the site, prompting the government to close it down.
Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit seeking possession of the site on December 17, 1959, claiming to be the caretakers of the disputed land. On December 18, 1961, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf filed a suit claiming ownership of the site.
Later, on December 6, 1992, some Hindu kar sevaks demolished the Babri Masjid, sparking communal riots across India and killing at least 2,000 people.
Several writ petitions were filed in Allahabad High Court, including one by Ismail Faruqui, challenging various aspects of the Act. The Supreme Court, acting under Article 139A, transferred the writ petitions that were pending in the High Court.
In April 2002, the Supreme Court began hearing on determining who owned the disputed site. In March 2003, the court held that in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature was to be allowed on the acquired land.
The Allahabad High Court ruled on September 30, 2010, that the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts among Hindus, Muslims, and the Nirmohi Akhara. The petitioners petitioned the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court verdict.
In 2016, the court reopened the case for a new hearing. In 2017, the Supreme Court stated that the case was sensitive and suggested that it be settled out of court. It requested that stakeholders hold talks to reach an amicable solution. However, no solution was found. Ultimately, the Supreme Court convened a five-judge Constitution Bench in 2018 to hear the land dispute case. The Supreme Court reconstituted the five-member Constitution Bench to hear the case after Justice U U Lalit recused himself, causing the Supreme Court to decide for a new bench. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was joined on the new bench by Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S A Nazeer.
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision in November 2019, cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple on the disputed site of Ayodhya and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.
Issues involved
The Allahabad High Court addressed eight major issues involving over 30 questions in connection with the civil suit. A look at how the High Court ruled on these eight issues, which are central to the Supreme Court appeal:
Is the claim made by the Hindu side in 1989, particularly by the deity Ramlalla Virajman, time-barred?
While the law of limitation states that if a party does not file a claim within six years, all three judges on the Allahabad Bench agreed that the suit filed on Ram Lalla’s behalf is not barred by limitation. They agreed that, even if the suits were time-barred, the Code of Civil Procedure requires the court to render judgement on all issues, regardless of its decision on a preliminary issue. Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board’s two lawsuits were ruled to be time-barred.
Does a suit filed in 1885 settled the question of land possession?
In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das had filed a suit seeking permission to build a temple in the Ram Chabutara area. Mohammad Ashgar, who claimed to be the Mutawali of the Babri mosque, opposed the suit. While he did object to the demarcation of the land by a few inches, he did not raise substantial objections. The suit was dismissed; the court believed that granting permission to build a temple would amount to laying the foundation of a rift between the two communities.
The argument on behalf of Ram Lalla was that the 1885 suit was res judicata — or a settled point of law that could not be judged again. In 2010, Justice Khan ruled that the order was essentially a status quo order that made no legal decisions and thus could not bind the Muslim side.
When was the structure built, by whom, and who owned the land?
The Hindu side claimed that it had always owned the land and was only removed in 1949 when the premises were sealed and attached by the district magistrate of Faizabad. They claimed that Emperor Babur built a mosque. The Muslim side claimed that the mosque was built in 1528 by Babur’s commander Mir Baqi, who dedicated it as Sunni waqf property, and that they had owned it since then.
According to Justice Khan and Justice Agarwal, there is no definite evidence to support either claim. Justice Khan trusted on a 1786 account by European geographer Joseph Tiefenthaler to conclude that the structure was built before 1786, but there is no consistent historical evidence to conclude that it was built in 1528. Mir Baqi built the structure at Babur’s command, according to Justice Sharma, but this cannot be proven convincingly.
Was the mosque built on the site of an ancient Hindu temple?
The three judges each had a different take on this. Justice Khan ruled that no temples were demolished to build the mosque, but that it was built over the ruins of temples that had been lying there for a long time, and that some of the material from those temples was used in its construction. According to Justice Khan, Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi existed before 1855, and Hindu worshippers offered prayers there. The court’s decision to grant joint possession of the land was based on this.
Justice Agarwal ruled that the building was not used exclusively by Muslims and that after 1856-57, the outer courtyard was used exclusively by Hindus, while the inner courtyard was visited for worship by members of both communities.
The masjid was built on the ruins of a Hindu temple, according to Justice Sharma. He relied on Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) findings that 265 inscriptions were discovered on December 6, 1992, after the structure was demolished, and other architectural remains leave no doubt that the inscription is written in the 11th and 12th century Devanagari script. He also relied on the report and testimony of Dr Rakesh Tiwari, former director-general of the ASI, who stated that an old temple was demolished and the masjid was built in its place.
Were idols and religious objects placed on the night of December 22-23, 1949, or were they already there?
Justice Khan and Justice Sharma agreed that these were placed on the pulpit inside the mosque for the first time that night, but Justice Agarwal ruled that it could not be proven that they were placed on that specific day.
Did the outer courtyard include Ram Chabutra, Bhandar and Sita Rasoi? Were these demolished in 1992?
All three judges agreed that these structures existed on the outer courtyard based on maps from 1885 and 1950. On December 6, 1992, the parties agreed that these would be demolished. Justice Khan mentioned Tiefenthaler, a geographer who visited the area between 1766 and 1771 and discovered Ram Chabutra.
According to Justice Khan, it had to have been there before that time. Its existence is mentioned in many subsequent gazetteer reports, etc. On the other hand, it is unimaginable, according to Justice Khan, that a Hindu worshipping place would have been either allowed to remain inside the boundary wall or acceptable to be built at the time of the mosque’s construction.
Who had possession and title of the property?
According to Justice Agarwal, the inner courtyard did not remain exclusively in the possession of any of the parties. On the outer courtyard, he believed that Hindus had perfected the right to pray, which had been practised exclusively for more than a century; however, this did not apply to the inner courtyard.
According to Justice Sharma, it was not proven that Muslims remained in exclusive possession of the property based on revenue waqf records. He stated that Muslims could not claim adverse possession of the property because it was an open space and everyone, including Muslims, visited it.
Justice Khan held while Muslims were unable to prove that the land belonged to Babur, on whose orders the mosque was built, Hindus were unable to prove that there was an existing temple at the site where the mosque was built after demolishing the temple.
Is the Babri Masjid a valid mosque?
Justice Agarwal ruled that the building had been known as a “mosque” for more than two and a half centuries, and at least 200 years before the current dispute arose in 1950. According to Justice Sharma, historical records show that the mosque was built after a temple was demolished. Justice Khan ruled that because the mosque was built on someone else’s land, it could not be said that it was not a valid mosque. He concluded that, while the use of the material from the ruined temple is not desirable, it does not render the mosque illegal in the eyes of the law.
Important Aspects that paved the way for the judgement
To pave the way for the Ram temple, the Supreme Court ruled that Ram Lalla Virajman (the personification of the Hindu God) was the legal owner of the disputed 2.77-acre plot of land.
The court ordered the Centre and the UP government to give the Sunni Central Waqf Board 5 acres of land at an alternative site in Ayodhya within three months to build a mosque. “The land shall be allotted either by the Central government out of the land acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993 or the state govt (UP) at a suitable prominent place in Ayodhya… The Sunni Central Waqf Board would be at the liberty… to take all necessary steps for the construction of a mosque,” the court said.
The decision was based on evidence of ownership of the disputed land. The Supreme Court also relied on its understanding that namaz was not continuously offered in the inner section before 1857. In contrast, evidence suggests that Hindus worship continuously. As a result, it determined that Ram Lalla had a stronger claim to possession than the Sunni Waqf Board.
According to the Supreme Court, the land being given to Muslims is the result of the illegal demolition of the mosque. It said: “The Muslims were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque on Dec 22-23, 1949 which was ultimately destroyed on 6 Dec 1992… This court… must ensure that a wrong committed is remedied. Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of Muslims who’ve been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed.”
What does the verdict mean?
This order cleared the way for the construction of a Ram temple on the site of the Babri Masjid, which was demolished in 1992, a long-standing demand of Hindutva organisations and the BJP. Although the court stated that the demolition of the 16th-century Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, by mobs led by these organisations was illegal, it indirectly endorsed the act of vandalism by awarding the land to Hindu parties.
It is impossible to say whether the same verdict would have been reached if the mosque had still stood. Such a result reinforces the perception that India is a majoritarian state in which mob rule by the majority can be given the endorsement of state authority. Many have argued that a result like this could spur further demands from the BJP and its parent organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, to question the ownership of other Muslim religious structures because they stand on Hindu holy sites.
Conclusion
This case is significant because it is the longest in the history of the Indian judiciary and has involved all of India’s Prime Ministers, from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi. Finally, on November 9th, 2019, this dispute was resolved. The Supreme Court attempted to approach this case harmoniously, attempting to strike a balance between both religions.
According to my, we should focus on the real issues that lead to a country’s development, such as poverty, unemployment, agriculture, and so on. We must resist politicians’ use of religious emotions. Politicians divert our attention by bringing up religious issues, and they use the concept of “divide and rule” to win elections. This is one of the examples because this dispute was a hot topic in previous Lok Sabha elections.
References
Staff, S. (2019, November 9). Ayodhya verdict is explained in five paragraphs. Scroll. in. Retrieved September 24, 2021, from https://scroll.in/article/943153/ayodhya-case-indian-supreme-courts-decision-in-favour-of-ram-temple-in-five-simple-paragraphs.
Ayodhya dispute: Chronology of events in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri MASJID land dispute case. The Economic Times. (n.d.). Retrieved September 24, 2021, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/chronology-of-events-in-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case/articleshow/71980846.cms?from=mdr.
M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Versus Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (Supreme Court of India 2010).
