CASE NAME- “M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors”




JUDGES – Ranjan Gogoi (CJI), Sharad Arvind Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer

CITATION- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10866-10867 OF 2010.

Appellant – “M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs”

RESPONDENT – “Mahant Suresh Das & Ors”


The historic Ayodhya judgment is flawless in every way. Indian people have deep sentiments and regard for their religion and religious events. It is both beneficial and terrible for them. We usually believe that we should be devoted to our deities and respect our religion. We’ve also heard about religious extremism. In a country like India, it is not a hidden occurrence. In order to conserve, defend, and sustain the culture and traditions of all religions, India has enshrined the idea of secularism in its Constitution. Regardless, people’s various attitudes and views create discord in society, which leads to violence and disruption. In your community, you may also hear the phrase “Mandir wahi banayenge” and the song “Mandir wahi banayenge.” Now we shall attempt to explain the history, context, and difficulties. The 5-judge bench of the Apex Court finally reached a consensus on November 9, 2019, to end a ten-year political and communal land dispute. For the first time, a constitutional bench rather than a two-judge panel resolved a civil case. The judgment was then read out in open court by the CJI rather than the lead author because it did not include the names of the writers. The judges agreed to withhold the identities because they wanted to address the public as a group on such a crucial issue. Third, a 116-page unsigned “addendum” to the 929-page judgment was added.


The story revolved around the coexistence of Muslims and Hindus in the city of Ayodhya, where the first Mughal emperor, Babur, built the “Babri Mosque” in 1528, which Muslims believe to be the birthplace of “Lord Rama” in the Treta Yuga. Ayodhya saw its first religious strife in 1850 over a nearby mosque at “Hanuman Garhi”. According to the aforementioned local belief, the Kar Sevaks illegally demolished the Masjid during this period. Local Hindus should be allowed to build a temple there.

Hindu militants stormed into the Babri mosque and placed idols of “Rama and Sita” inside when the Colonial Government declined to seize possession of the site where it was built. [1]K.K.K. Nair opposed “Jawaharlal Nehru’s” order to remove the idols because he thought it would spark rioting. Police officers locked the gates, and neither Muslims nor Hindus were permitted inside.[2] The “Sunni Waqf Board” and the AMRM both filed a complaint in the neighborhood court asserting they had a right to practice their religion there, despite priests being permitted admission for daily prayer.

The Ayodhya court conflict began in 1950 with a plea filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, the “Ayodhya secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha”[3]. In 1959, the “Nirmohi Akhara” asserted ownership of the land in a second case. “In 1961, the “Sunni Central Waqf Council” submitted a counter-request in response to the conflict”. The Allahabad HC upheld the idea of Lord Ram’s birthplace in 2010, however, the judgment was delayed as a result of challenges to the Supreme Court from the “Sunni Waqf Board” and many other case participants.[4]

The conclusion of this case’s final hearing will start in February 2018, it was decided at the end of 2017. The case’s reliance on documents in Persian and Arabic from the 16th century, which turned out to be one of the few sources of information about the site’s residents and has been a matter of controversy for more than two centuries, was another fascinating aspect.

Issue Raised

In this case, the controversy centered on the ownership of property recognized as “Lord Rama’s” birthplace and the background of the “Babri Mosque”.

1) “Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandra Ji?”

2) Is there a Janam Bhumi temple with idols within, as claimed in paragraph three of the complaint?

3) Is the subject property the Babri Masjid, a mosque built by Emperor Babar?

4(a) when was it constructed, and who built it—Babar, as the plaintiffs claim, or Meer Baqui, as defendant No. 13 claims?

(b) Whether, as claimed by defendant number 13, the structure had been erected after a purported Hindu temple had been destroyed. And if so, what effect?

5) Do Hindus worship the disputed location as “Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan”, and do they have a legal obligation to go there as a holy site of pilgrimage since the beginning of time? And if so, what effect?

6) How true are the claims made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the complaint that the premises in dispute, or any portion thereof, is where “Lord Rama” was born? And if so, what effect?

Arguments from the parties of the case

“Nirmohi Akhara”

If one of the Hindu sects wins, the Akhara should be permitted to worship the deity. “If the court decides to uphold the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 ruling and the Muslim parties say they won’t build on the disputed site, the court should order them to turn over their portion of the land to the Hindu parties”. Additionally, the court should direct the government to give property to the Muslim side so they may build a mosque away from the conflict.

“Ram Lalla Virajman”

“Ram Lalla Virajman” submitted a written petition asking the court to grant Ram Lalla possession of all the contested lands. The proclamation states that neither the Nirmohi Akhara nor Muslim organizations should be given access to any of the disputed land.

“Ram Janambhoomi Punar Sudhar Samiti”

Only a “Ram Temple” should be permitted to be constructed on the disputed site in Ayodhya. Once the temple is completed, a trust must be established to govern it.

“Gopal Singh Visharad”

Gopal Singh Visharad, whose family would have done rites on the temple site for generations, maintained that offering prayers to “Ram Janmabhoomi” is his constitutional prerogative.[5] According to his comments, there should be no compromise in the “Ram Janmabhoomi” dispute.[6]

“Sunni Waqf Board”

The Commission has declared that it wants the same solution that was sought during the hearings. During the proceedings, Commission lawyer “Rajeev Dhawan” asked that the Masjid be restored before it was demolished on December 6, 1992.

“Hindu Mahasabha”

The SC is anticipated to establish a trust to govern the “Ram Temple” that will be erected on the disputed site in Ayodhya. To deal with this trust, the Supreme Court should appoint an administrator.

“Shia Waqf Board”

In their petition for relief before the HC of Allahabad, the Muslim parties argued that they should abandon their claim to the disputed territory and turn it over to the Hindu parties in order for a “Ram Temple” to be constructed there. In a written statement, the “Shia Waqf board of directors” recommended that a “Ram Temple” be erected on the contested Ayodhya site. Hindu groups should now be allowed to access the property that was previously designated for the Sunni Waqf Council according to the High Court’s ruling.


A Supreme Court panel of five judges heard the title litigation cases from August through October 2019. On November 9th, 2019, the SC—presided over by “Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi”—issued its decision, overturning the previous decision and stating that the government owned the land based on tax records. He further ordered that the land be given to a trust so that it might be used to build the Hindu temple. He also ordered the government to provide the “Waqf Sunni Council” with an extra five acres of land so that it can build the mosque. These are the 8 points that were highlighted in the judgment:-

  1. The SC gave the god Ram Lalla the whole 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya.
  2. The SC mandated that Muslims receive a 5-acre alternative plot of land in a visible place from the governments of Central and Uttar Pradesh in order to build a mosque.[7]
  3. In order to build confidence, the court asked that the Centre take into account offering “Nirmohi Akhara” some sort of representation.
  4. The SC dismissed the petition of “Nirmohi Akhara”, which claimed to be the custodian of the contested territories.
  5. The “Union government was mandated by the Supreme Court of India (SC) to establish a trust within three months in order to build the Ram Mandir on the controversial site where the “Babri Masjid” was torn down in 1992”.
  6. The court “determined that the structure under the contentious site in Ayodhya was not an Islamic edifice, but the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) was unable to establish whether a temple had been demolished to make room for a mosque”.
  7. The court also declared that “Muslims and Hindus both regard the site of the Babri Masjid to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Supreme Court further decided that it was unlawful to demolish the “Babri Masjid mosque” in 1992. The court also ruled that Hindus’ belief that “Lord Rama” was born on the disputed spot where the Masjid formerly stood is unassailable”.
  8. The SC declared that the “Hindus had demonstrated that they were in charge of the site in the outer courtyard of the dispute and that the “Waqf Central Sunni Council” of the UP had not proven its case in the Ayodhya dispute”.[8]


In this case, the court dealt with a disagreement between Muslims and Hindus over a holy location. The “Sunni Waqf Board” represented Muslim interests, whereas the Ram deity represented Hindu interests and was given legal personality. The Court based its decision on evidence that Hindus have occupied the outside courtyard of the disputed region continuously since 1857, while Muslims and Hindus have disputed the inside courtyard.

 The Court concluded that Muslims should get compensation since the Masjid was wrongfully demolished. Currently, the “Ayodhya Sunni Waqf Board” has 5 acres of property that might be used to build a new mosque. There was competition among political parties for Hindu voters.

The court found that because the idol represented the interests of the Hindu populace, it deserved to have its own legal personality. The Court rejected the idea of granting immovable property, like a sacred place, legal identity.

The “Sunni Central Waqf Board” did not award any proof of worship or exclusive control over the inner courtyard between 1528 and 1857. Hindus were only permitted to pray in the Masjid’s outer courtyard when a wall separating the two courtyards was constructed in 1857.

Hindus should own the disputed property, the Supreme Court unanimously declared, since they had a better claim to it than Muslims.[9] The “Nirmohi Akhara’s” claim was included in the trust that the Central Government was ordered to establish in order to oversee the site and supervise the construction of a Ram temple.


This lawsuit is notable because it has included every Prime Minister of India, from “Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi”, and has lasted the longest in Indian legal history. The Supreme Court made an effort to resolve the issue amicably and in a way that honored both religions on November 9th, 2019. The court granted the god Ram Lalla possession of the full 2.77 acres of the contested site in Ayodhya. It was mandated that the governments of Central and Uttar Pradesh provide Muslims with a 5-acre alternative site in a prominent location for the construction of a mosque. Politicians utilize the “divide and rule” tactic to win elections by deflecting our attention to religious-related concerns. The Ayodhya case presented an opportunity for India’s judiciary to make a priceless contribution to humanity’s odyssey because, through its decision, it was anticipated to lay out a vision and ignite the desire in communities around the world to seek a peaceful and legal resolution to such inter-faith conflicts. Additionally, it would help the faithful learn how to accept and get along with things that could be unusual, varied, or thought to be such.


[1] Elst, Koenraad. Ayodhya: The Case against the Temple. New Delhi: Voice of India, 2002.

[2] Copley, Antony. “Indian secularism reconsidered: from Gandhi to Ayodhya.” Contemporary South Asia 2.1 (1993): 47-65.

[3] Arunima, G. “Ayodhya Verdict: Bad Theology, Without Justice.” Economic & Political Weekly 45.41 (2010): 9.

[4] Gupta, Anupam. “Dissecting the Ayodhya Judgment.” Economic and Political Weekly (2010): 33-41.

[5] Rani, Miss.M. And Shrivastava, Dr.G. (2021). Historical Perception and Right to Education System to Enhance the Quality of Education in India. International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing, (2005-4262). 

[6] Ali, Dr.H. and Choudhury, Dr.P. (2021). Constitutional Aspects towards Social Networking Sites Regulation with Freedom of Speech & Expression. International Journal of Grid and Distributed Computing, (2005-4262).

[7] Meenu, Agrawal, A.K. and Dev, K. (2021). Study of Challenges Faced by Youth Entrepreneurs in Rural Areas of Western Uttar Pradesh. Utkal Historical Research Journal, (0976-2132).

[8] Meenu, Agrawal, A.K. and Dev, K. (2021). Study of Challenges Faced by Youth Entrepreneurs in Rural Areas of Western Uttar Pradesh. Utkal Historical Research Journal, (0976-2132).

[9] Cesari, Jocelyne. “Time, Power, and Religion: Comparing the Disputes over Temple Mount and the Ayodhya Sacred Sites.” Journal of Law, Religion and State 9.1 (2021): 95-123.