CASE NAME: “M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors”
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DECLARED ON: 9th NOVEMBER 2019
APPEALED FROM: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
JUDGES: Ranjan Gogoi (CJI), DY Chandrachud, S. Abdul Nazeer, Sharad Arvind bobde, Ashok Bhushan.
CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO.10866-10867 OF 2010
PETITIONERS : M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs, Maulana Asshad Rashidi; Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.
LEGAL COUNSELS OF PETITIONER: Adv.Rajeev Dhavan; Adv.Raju Ramachandran.
RESPONDENTS : Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, Nirmohi Akhara; Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman; Uttar Pradesh; All India Hindu Mahasabha;
LEGAL COUNSEL OF RESPONDENT: Senior Advocate K. Parasaran; Adv.Tushar Mehta; Adv.Subramaniam Swamy.
FACTS:
- It portrayed the tale of the city of Ayodhya, which is residence to both Muslims (who believe it is the location of the Babri Mosque, constructed in 1528 by the first Mughal emperor, Babur) and Hindus (who claim it is the birthplace of Lord Rama).
- During 1850, there was a religious conflict at Ayodhya, India, concentrating on a mosque close to Hanuman Garhi. Hindus attacked the Babri Masjid during this process.
- The local Hindu community has long insisted on owning the land on which the Babri Mosque originated, as well as the authority to construct a temple there. They believed that the Babri mosque had been built at the expense of a Hindu temple. However, the Colonial Government continuously turned down their requests.
- On December 22, 1949, Akhil Bharatiya Ramanyanam Mahasabha (ABRM), a Hindu Mahasabha subordinate branch, began reciting the Ramcharitmanas nonstop for nine days. After the recitation, sculptures of Devi Sita and Lord Ram were placed inside the mosque by Hindu activists.
- Jawaharlal Nehru’s instruction to remove the idols was refused by local authority K.K.K. Nair, who is well-known for his associations with Hindu nationalism. Nair contended that the removal of the idols would provoke bloodshed amongst communities.
- Since priests were permitted to pray in the mosque because of the idols, the mosque effectively became a de facto temple. All other Hindus and Muslims were forbidden from entering once the police sealed the gates.
- Gopal Singh Visharad, who was denied entry, submitted the initial petition that started the legal dispute over Ayodhya in 1950.He was the secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha at Ayodhya. The organisation was founded to refute the secular ideologies of the Congress party.
- Subsequently, in 1959, the Nirmohi Akhada lodged an additional suit, arguing that they were entitled to possession of the area.
- The Sunni Central Waqf Council responded to the aforementioned court action in 1961 with a counter-request. The Council was created by Indian legislation to safeguard and maintain places of worship and cultural significance for Muslims.
- The concept of the birthplace of Lord Ram was confirmed by the Allahabad High Court in 2010, but the ruling was postponed due to challenges brought before the Supreme Court by the “Sunni Waqf Board” and numerous other parties involved in the case.
- It was agreed at the end of 2017 that the final hearing in this matter would begin in February 2018. Another interesting component of the case was its reliance on 16th-century Persian and Arabic texts, which turned out to be one of the few sources of information about the site’s people and has been a subject of contention for more than two centuries.
ISSUES RAISED:
The case concerned ownership of land that is often believed to be the history of the Babri Masjid and the place of origin of Lord Rama.
- whether a mosque was built on top of an already-existing Hindu temple?
- Is the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which split Rama Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara, & the Sunni Waqf Board ownership of the property in Ayodhya, still enforceable?
- Does Ram Janmabhoomi, the site of Ram’s birth, have legal status regardless of the existence of idols? And in that case, as a legal entity, is it safe from claims of possession?
- Does the Limitation Act of 1908 prohibit suits 3 and 4 from being filed?
CONTENTION:
Nirmohi Akhara:
The authority to administer the grounds of Nirmohi Akhara once the Ram Temple is constructed, as well as to erect a temple on the disputed location.If the court agrees to maintain the Higher Court of Allahabad’s 2010 judgements and the Muslim parties announce they’ll are not going to construct on the disputed location, they will be required to give over their portion of the property to the Hindu parties.About a long-term lease for the massive Ram temple (the High Court of Allahabad divided the disputed territory between the Sunni Waqf Council, the Nirmohi Akhara, and Rama Lalla). The government should be ordered by the court to give the Muslim side land outside the battle zone so that they can build a mosque.
Ram Lalla Virajman :
In a formal petition, “Ram Lalla Virajman” requested that the court give Ram Lalla ownership of all the disputed lands. According to the proclamation, no part of the disputed property shall be accessible to Muslim organisations or the Nirmohi Akhara.
Gopal Singh Visharad:
Gopal Singh Visharad argued that it is his fundamental right to pray to Ram Janmabhoomi. His forefathers would have performed rites on the site of the temple for decades.
According to his declaration, there should be no settlement in the Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.
Punar Sudhar Samiti Ram Jnambhoomi :
There should only be a Ram temple allowed at the controversial location of Ayodhya. After the temple is finished, it has to be governed by a trust.
Sunni Waqf Board:
The Commission has declared its desire to receive the same remedy that was requested during the hearings. Rajeev Dhawan, the Commission’s counsel, asked that the Babri Masjid be given back its original shape before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, during the proceedings.
Shia Waqf Board:
Despite being a Muslim body, the Shia Waqf Board has backed arguments in favour of building the Ram Mandir and advocated for Muslim parties to renounce their rights. These are their entreaties:
They argued that since Babar, the Muslim builder of the mosque in 1528, belonged to the Shia sect, not the Sunni Waqf Board, and that the land in question belonged to the Shia Waqf Board.
They asked that Hindu parties receive the land that the Allahabad High Court had ordered be handed to Muslims.
RATIONALE
The long-running legal and socio religious conflict over a region claimed by both Muslims and Hindus was resolved in a significant way in the Ayodhya challenge on November 2, 2019. The Indian Supreme Court made an effort to reconcile historical claims, archaeological evidence, and religious convictions in its decision. The court determined that the location was the birthplace of the well-known Hindu figure Lord Ram, and In order to allow for the construction of a Hindu temple, the contested land was granted to a trust. Simultaneously, the court acknowledged that the Babri Masjid was unlawfully demolished in 1992 and gave the Sunni Waqf Board permission to construct a mosque on a separate five-acre plot of land. This choice was made after a careful examination of all the information available, which included the Archaeological Survey of India’s judgment that a non-Islamic structure might have supported the demolished mosque. The verdict aimed to promote communal harmony and a peaceful resolution of the dispute, respecting the religious principles of both communities. The court emphasized the ideas of justice, equity, and fairness in an attempt to reach a just and unbiased verdict on a highly contentious case that had provoked decades of conflict and violence.
The court in this instance addressed a dispute between Muslims and Hindus on a sacred site. The Ram deity, who was granted legal identity, defended Hindu rights, while the “Sunni Waqf Board” represented Islamist ones. The fact that Muslims and Hindus have contested the interior courtyard of the challenged zone served as the foundation for the court’s decision, but Hindus have continually occupied the outside courtyard since 1857.
The Court found that because the Masjid was illegally demolished, Muslims ought to get compensation. There are now 5 acres owned by the “Ayodhya Sunni Waqf Board” that could be used to construct a new mosque. Political parties competed with one another for Hindu voters.
The idol reflected the rights of the Hindu people, so the court decided that it ought to have its own legal identity. The court dismissed the idea of granting immovable property, like a holy place, legal identity.
Between 1528 and 1857, the “Sunni Central Waqf Board” did not grant any evidence of worship or exclusive power over the inside courtyard. Only when a wall dividing the two courtyards was built in 1857 were Hindus allowed to pray in the outer courtyard within the mosque.
The Supreme Court Dominated unanimously that Hindus should be the rightful owners of the disputed property since they were entitled to it more than Muslims were.[9] The Central Government was instructed to set up a trust to manage the land and oversee the building of a Ram temple, and this trust contained the “Nirmohi Akhara” claim.
INFERENCE OR JUDGMENT:
The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court considered issues related to the title through August to October 2019. On November 9, 2019, the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi of the Indian Supreme Court gave the ruling, overturning the earlier ruling and stating that the land was owned by the government according to tax records. Furthermore, he issued the directive to place the land into ownership to ensure the Hindu temple might be constructed. He also instructed the government to give the Waqf Sunni Council an additional five acres of land so that the mosque could be built.
The verdict made in this case can be summed up as follows:
- The Indian government was mandated by the court to establish a board of trustees and establish a trust in order to continue ahead with the construction of the Ram Mandir temple in three months. Following its establishment, the Trust will get ownership of the disputed territory from the Indian government.
- The Supreme Court awarded the entire 2.77 acres of contested land in Ayodhya to the god Ram Lalla.
- The Supreme Court ordered the central government and UP governments to give Muslims an area of five acres of extra property in a prominent location so they could build a mosque.
- The ASI’s archaeological data, the Court noted, indicates that the Babri Mosque was constructed upward from the “structure” with clearly indigenous and non-Islamic architectural design.
- The Waqf Central Sunni Council of Uttar Pradesh was determined by the Supreme Court to have failed to present their case for Ayodhya, and the Hindus had discovered that they were in charge of the spot in the outer courtyard in dispute.
- The court determined that Nirmohi Akhara’s suit lacked shebait rights and could not be sustained. The court did decide that Nirmohi Akhara ought to have suitable representation on the board of trustees, though.
- Because there are legal options accessible to Muslim parties to challenge the scientific findings of ASI, the Court of Appeal of India permitted contesting parties to file grievances before the Allahabad High Court. The court further observed that the ASI testimony was not a standard view and considered the historians’ statement to the nation, which was authored by historians from Aligarh, to be an opinion.
- The Supreme Court declared that the dishonor of the Babri Masjid in 1949 and its demolition were unlawful.
NAME: VANDANA CHARAYA
COLLEGE: IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY.