M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.[1]
(Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010)
2019 1251 SC
FACTS
This Case has one of the oldest origins in the history of the Indian Judicial System and has also had the attention of the whole nation for a long time. The Case revolves around the religious sentiments of the two largest communities in India and their dispute over a piece of land in the ancient city of Ayodhya. In this case, the Hindu community made claims that the Babri Masjid, which Mughal Emperor built, Babur, was built over Lord Ram’s birthplace. The first communal riot over the disputed region took place in the 1850s, and the Colonial British Government, constructed a separating wall inside the land to sort the situation out. Mahant Raghubar Das, in 1885, filed a suit towards building a Ram Temple in the outer courtyard. The Court rejected this plea to maintain peace and order.
On December 22, 1949, the Hindu community placed idols of Lord Ram in the Central Dome, sparking a communal fire that lasted for years. Following suits filed by both communities, the Faizabad Civil Court locked up the disputed area per Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, in 1986, the District Judge of Faizabad Court opened the gates and permitted the Hindu community to worship there. This decision culminated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid by the Karsewaks on December 6, 1992.
The Nirmohi Akhara filed the third suit in this case in 1959. They claimed to be in charge of the temple and its management. The Uttar Pradesh Suni Central Board of Waqf and other Muslims in Ayodhya filed the fourth suit in 1961. Finally, in 1989, the God himself, Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajman, filed a suit through his next friend, former Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal. He claimed ownership of the disputed site as well as an injunction.
The Case was transferred from the Civil Court in Faizabad to the Allahabad High Court in 1989. The High Court decided to divide the land into three sections: the inner courtyard for the Lord, the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi for the Nirmohi Akhara, and the remainder for the Sunni Board. However, none of the parties were satisfied with the Court’s decision and thus filed Appeals and Special Leave Petitions with the Supreme Court.
According to the Hindu community, the Ram Janam Bhoomi existed previously and was destroyed by the Mughals after they conquered India, and then the Babri Masjid was built. On the other hand, the Muslims claimed that the mosque was built on a vacant plot of land by Mir Qasim, the General of Babur, per Babur’s orders. On the other hand, the Muslim community did not deny the existence of Ram Janam Bhoomi. They only stated that the Hindu community did not have a proprietary claim. According to the Nirmohi Akhara, the suit was filed in the capacity of the Shebat. A Shebait is the person who serves and manages the Deity and has complete control over the Deity’s property.
The Sunni Board’s main argument was that there were no deities in the area until the idols were placed in 1949. They claimed that they used to pray in the mosque regularly until 1949. Because they used the disputed property for a long time, it would be more advantageous to them. On the other hand, the Hindu community claimed that after Babur invaded their land, now known as India, he destroyed several temples, including the temple in Ayodhya. Since the Hindu community had to face the brutality of their invasion, it was only fair to right the wrongs of the past following the adoption of a constitutional form of just government. They claimed that the land title, which had existed since the twelfth century, would still be valid today. Evidence was presented, including a 1928 edition of the Faizabad Gazette. This gazette acknowledged the destruction of the ancient temple known as the Ram Janam Bhoomi by the Mughal ruler Babur. The Kasauti Pillar and other materials from the destroyed temple constructed the mosque. Even after the destruction, worshippers continued to worship Lord Ram through various symbols such as Sita Rasoi. The suit filed on behalf of the Deity was significant because it was necessary to represent the Lord himself rather than his followers. He would be more concerned with their interests rather than Lord Ram’s.
ISSUES RAISED
- Were the lawsuits filed by Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Waqf Board, and the Deity himself barred by Indian limitation law?
- Whether Ram Janma Bhoomi could be recognized as a Juristic entity?
- Whether there was a temple that existed in the disputed area? If so, would the Hindu community be entitled to it?
CONTENTIONS
On Behalf of the Sunni Central Waqf Board
- No deities were installed within the premises of the Babri Masjid until the idol was secretly brought in on the night of December 22-23, 1949. The written statement denies the presence of any deity.
- Regular prayers were held in the mosque until December 22, 1949, and Friday prayers were held until December 16, 1949.
- The British government continued grants for the upkeep and maintenance of the mosque that had been given during Babur’s reign.
- Even in the absence of an express dedication, the disputed site’s long use as a mosque for public worship elevates the property in question to a waqf by the user. It claimed that namaz had been offered in the mosque since its construction in 1528 until its desecration on 22/23 December 1949. As a result, the disputed property has served as a place of religious worship.
On Behalf of the Plaintiffs
- It was claimed that several temples were destroyed during Babur’s invasion of India, including the temple built by Vikramaditya in Ayodhya. He claimed that the territory now known as India was under foreign occupation during the Mughal period, and Hindus were not allowed to exercise their religious rights. With the adoption of the Indian Constitution, the Mughals’ wrongs are likely to be righted.
- It was also argued that because a deity’s land is inalienable, the title of the plaintiff deities from the twelfth century is still legally enforceable today.
- The Faizabad Gazetteer of 1928 supports the claim that the ancient temple, known as the Ram Janmabhumi temple, was destroyed by Babur in 1528 and that a mosque was built on its site largely with the materials of the destroyed temple, including the Kasauti pillars. Nonetheless, the worshippers continued to worship Lord Ram through symbols such as the Charan and Sita Rasoi and the idol of Lord Ram on the Ramchabutra within the enclosure.
- There has never been or could have been a valid waqf. Despite occasional trespass by Muslim residents, it has been stated that the plaintiff deities have title and possession. No prayers are said to have been offered at the mosque.
- Section 145 proceedings in which the plaintiff deities were not parties.
- Deities have been in possession, and any claim of title that is adverse to the deities is rendered null and void by adverse possession.
- Suit 5 was necessary due to the Deity not being a party to the previous suits. Furthermore, based on the apprehension that in the existing suits, the personal interests of the leading parties were being pursued without protecting the independent needs and concerns of Lord Ram’s Deity, which is well and truly borne out by the proceedings as they unfolded before this Court.
RATIONALE
The Court went back in time to understand both parties’ claims. The Court held that the current judicial system would recognize all of the rights and liabilities of the past if the previous courts had recognized them in any given way. Our Constitution even recognizes the existence of previous judicial decisions. The Constitution states that any law in effect prior to the Constitution’s adoption shall remain in effect even after the Constitution’s adoption.
The Court emphasized that the British administration had recognized and helped the Hindu community. This relief resulted from the installation of Lord Ram idols in 1873. The Court then went on to address the issue of adverse possession. First and foremost, Adverse possession refers to the idea that anyone who does not have title to land can acquire it through continued possession. According to the Court, any adverse possession plea exists as a combination of law and facts rather than just law.
Because the Muslim community was unable to establish any proof of possession of the disputed territory between 1528 and 1860, they could not meet the essential elements of adverse possession and thus could not claim it. The Court went on to cite Ismail Faruqui’s landmark decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that mosques were not a fundamental part of the Islamic religion.
In order to continue its discussion of the principles of religious secularity, the Court referred to another landmark Supreme Court decision. It was stated that secularism in India does not limit itself to passive religious tolerance. It also includes active efforts to ensure that all religions are treated equally. The Court ruled that the Muslim community’s rights had been grossly violated. They believed that the demolition of Babri Masjid was a violation of the Principle of the Rule of Law and that this violation had to be rectified in any way possible.
The Court went on to say that the fifth suit’s contention about whether the Deity himself was a juristic person was rejected. The Court rejected this argument, stating that if such property were given legal personality, the disputed property would cease to exist as immovable property.
When it came to the third suit, instituted by the Nirmohi Akhara, the Court stated that the previous magistrate’s judgment never mentioned their rights in the disputed property. The Nirmohi Akhara did not provide any proof of their claim. Their claims to the temple as a Shebait were also rejected because they did not file the suit for Deity’s incapacity. Because the suit was filed on their behalf, it involved their interests. In total, their suit was barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.
The Hindu community’s beliefs about the disputed area being the location of Ram Janam Bhoomi were proven through evidence mentioned in the Supreme Court’s addenda. The Court worked on its claims further after receiving reports from the Archaeological Survey of India, which stated that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land but a structure in the 12th century. The Hindu community, too, refused to accept the demarcation and continued to worship in the disputed area despite numerous riots. As a result, the Hindus held the title because they had established continuous, uninterrupted worship.
The Court decided to give the disputed 2.77 acres of land to the Hindus while also giving 5 acres of Mosque land to the Muslim community to nourish the secular commitment of our nation to its people and compensate the Muslim community for the illegal destruction of the mosque.
DEFECTS IN THE LAW
Waqf Property Act that establishes the legal Principle that establishes Waqf property cannot be given to the aggrieved party needs to amended. Waqf Property is a piece of land used as a public mosque. This Principle cannot prevail over the Constitution’s idea of justice. Many of the mosques built by Invaders from the Middle East had a common element; they were built over a temple or temple land. Moreover, even after years of asking justice through legal means, it would be wrong if the property which historically belongs to the other parties is being denied to them, just because that illegally and atrociously built mosque is a Waqf property.
INFERENCE
The Ram Mandir case has remained a watershed moment in Indian legal history. It was also one of the vast judgements because the Supreme Court had clubbed together a total of 5 previous suits which were filed before the lower courts and gave a combined judgement.
Suit 1, which Mahant Raghubar Das filed, sought to build a temple in the outer courtyard of the premise. The court rejected the plea to maintain peace and judicial order in society. This decision of the court was more double-faced than it seemed at first. The Civil court, which was an essential part of the establishment of British India, didn’t even try to resolve the conflict. The situation could’ve been better if, at the time, the disputed land was divided among the parties, as the Plaintiffs were satisfied with the outer courtyard according to religious texts that were the exact birthplace of Lord Rama. But the court applied the British policy of divide and rule and let the dispute between Hindus and Muslims get even worse and grave.
Both parties filed the second suit amid the ongoing riots for the land. The Faizabad Civil court ordered to lock the disputed property for both parties. This decision was very sensible as deciding anything in favor of any parties would have worsened the already sensitive situation.
But, in 1986, the Faizabad District judge allowed the Hindus to open the gate and worship the idols. This court decision backfired as this led to the destruction of the Babri Masjid by the Karsevaks in 1992.
The judgment and proceedings of the last three suits by Nirmohi Akhara, UP Suni Central Board of Waqf, and Lord Ram himself for declaration, maintenance, and possession of the site were transferred to the Allahabad High Court in 1989. The court began hearing the case in 2002. The proceedings were completed in 2010, in which the Allahabad High court decided to split and distribute the disputed land into three parts. The site of Ram Lalla idol to the party representing Ram Lalla; Sita Rasoi and Ram chabutara to Nirmohi Akhara; and rest to the Waqf board. Once again, the court was trying to avoid and escape the reality and give a prudent decision with which pleased none of the parties and did nothing to resolve the issue. Unsatisfied with the court’s judgment, the parties moved to the Supreme court to appeal against it.
The Supreme Court gave its final verdict in November 2019 which still got differing views. Some argued that the Supreme Court placed an unequal burden on the Muslim community to prove their possession claim. Because no Hindu texts specifically mention that the temple was built directly beneath the dome, and Babur’s memoir does not mention that he destroyed the temple to build the mosque, it is unfair to assume that such a temple existed. They believe that relying on European texts is still unjust. Another counter-argument is that the decision was well-balanced. In their respective periods, the Muslim and Hindu communities were given a remedy for wrongful injury to their rights to worship. Nonetheless, the judgment brought an end to a long-running case, and it is the best remedy to the problem, with which religious sentiments of around 90% of the Indians are attached and affected.
Submitted By:
Yash Jain
BBA LLB (2020-2025)
Christ Deemed to be University, Bangalore
[1] M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors 2019 1251 SC