By
Gargi Singh, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Introduction:-
The Ayodhya dispute (M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das) It is a notable land case in India. The Ayodhya dispute had reached the Supreme Court, specifically M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das. In this case, the Indian High Court, which had a three-judge bench, pronounced its judgement on 2 April 1055. The suns of the court chose that Berry’s part of the judgement via implied speeches that the parts as argued to the bench the parties, including the Indian government, were prominent to build theirs in their particular ends neatly without having a conflict over or at some point thus pointing out by any chance and that a positive step will have to be taken by the Government to keep on living. The Government should take potential steps to maintain the law & order situation that would lead towards more stable communal properties and the formation of more presumably corporate status separation-oriented portions within the civil code community system being developed. The site of the mosque became the subject of a violent, two-decade-long dispute that culminated in nationwide rioting and bloodshed. In 2010, A third party awarded one-third of the land to the Sunni Waqf Board and two-thirds to Hindu parties. The Supreme Court’s actions made India’s peace in yet attempting to join the traces of war. India has always been blemished when you look at the hind towards faith, on the one hand, and that to secularism & the rule of law.
FACTS:-
In 1527, Mughal Emperor Babar invaded India. He eliminated a few rulers to acquire their states, which started the struggle for constructing a Temple on Ram Janmbhoomi, where a previously existing Masjid named a land dispute — The battle of Sher Shah Suri with Humayun led by Hemu. Subsequently, in 1528, General Mir Baqi (Babar’s viceroy) visited Ayodhya and built the mosque Babri Masjid. Bitter rioting between Hindus and Muslims, which began in 1853, persisted till 1859. British officials split the land in half during the riots. The outer portion of the mosque was given to Hindus, and Muslims were allowed to enter the inside part. Disputes over the land resurfaced after a hiatus, and in 1885, Mahant Raghuvir Das filed a case seeking permission to remain at the site for puja.
After India gained independence, all hell broke loose over the construction of the Ram Temple. On the disputed land, where prayer and dagger were put up. Instead, when irked Hindus built a statue of Mary, a hundred Masjid were turned into a pandal to surprise stone-pelted Muslims, which forced Indian authorities to seal Ayodhya for months. The petitions were filed by Mahant Ram Chandra Das in 1950, Nirmohi Akhara (the Army of Dharma) in 1959, and the Sunni Waqf Board in 1961 Established to construct Ram Mandir, V.H.P. was in bad shape & looking for funds. In 1986, a Faizabad court allowed the unlocking of the mosque gates and the opening of its premises for Hindu worship. The Additional Magistrate took an order to the site, not wanting situations like racial lines escalating, and got it handed over to be kept under the local Municipal Board Chairman.
Drawing lines in the sand — even decades later: Ram Lalla Virajman staked a claim over every inch of land in 1989. I did not tell anyone, and the craziness spiralled out of control. The 1990 rath yatra of then Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani from Gujarat to Uttar Pradesh on ongoing Ayodhya standoff. It was a severe episode that had ramifications inside and outside the party. However, in 1991, the riots turned into a massive massacre and then sworn to take over the entire territory of UP under Kalyan Singh.
Demolition of Babri Masjid:
The Babri Masjid was demolished on 6 December 1992, and a makeshift Ram temple structure was erected in its place. This generated nationwide riots. The Liberhan committee was formed to keep track of and find out the people behind the demotion of the masjid. The Congress (ruling party) then proposed constructing four buildings on this disputed land: a masjid, a temple, a library and a museum. The B.J.P. opposed this notion. The controversy was rooted in 1990, and PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee established Ayodhya Vibhag to defuse the tension when B.J.P. took charge.
The H.C. order:
In 2002, a three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court was appointed to decide who owned the land. The high court had directed the A.S.I. to prepare a report on this. After the Ram murti was given to Lord Rama, Ram Lalla Virajman received it, and during this very period, there were nine mistakes in Resol surrounding areas Like Bandara’ ‘Ram Chabutra’; other acres of land where Nirmohi Akhara had claimed: The same error is directed by Sunni Waqf Board-Gurner Singh. The SC suspended the judgment many years later (9 May 2011).
The Supreme Court:
India’s Chief Justice in 2017 had attempted to address the dispute outside court. A mediation panel was constituted on 8 March 2019. Mr Kalifulla led a three-member mediation committee with Sriram Panchu, a Known mediator and Sri Ravi Shankar, founder of the Art of Living (referred only by first name). The J.P.C. submitted its report in May 2019. Following 40–a 40-day hearing, the Court reserved Orders and instead called upon parties to file a rectification plan in its place.
ISSUES:-
Title Suit: Whether Hindus or Muslims had a legitimate title to the disputed property where the Babri Masjid formerly stood.
Illegal idol placing: Determine if placing idols within the mosque in 1949 was unlawful, and if so, what the punishment should be.
Demolition of the Babri Masjid: Determine if the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid was unlawful, and if so, what corrective action should be taken.
Religious Significance and History: Whether the location was Lord Ram’s birthplace and whether a temple existed before the mosque.
Legal Remedies: Determine what legal remedies are acceptable in light of the historical, archaeological, and legal data offered by both sides.
CONTENTION:-
Arguments by the Hindu parties:
Historical and Religious Significance: Hindu groups, especially the Ram Lalla Virajman, contended this site is the divine birthplace of Lord Ram. They claimed that above the site of their demolished old Hindu temple, a Babri Masjid had been raised.
Archaeological Evidence: They depended on the Archaeological Survey of India (A.S.I.) reports based on their findings, which indicated a large building beneath the mosque of Hindu origin. Hindu groups said the archaeological data proved their case for a pre-existing temple.
Faith and Belief: Hindu parties said that the trust and belief of millions of Hindus in Lord Ram’s birthplace could not be compromised. According to them, the legal position should prioritise the religious significance of a place.
Arguments by the Muslim parties:
Title and Possession: The Sunni Waqf Board representing the Muslim parties argued that Babri Masjid was a legally constructed mosque and had belonged to them for generations. Citing historical records, they claimed possession of legitimate title deeds to the controversial piece or parcel of land, respectively.
The illegality of Idol Placing: The Muslim parties contended that the removal of idols from a mosque in 1949 itself was illegal and that the sealing of the Mosque later on deprived them of their rights. They believed this illegality should be corrected by giving them the site back.
A.S.I. Report and Religious Sentiments: The Muslim parties challenged the A.S.I. report, finding that it was unable to establish the presence of a Hindu temple beneath the mosque. They have also argued that faith and belief cannot override the law of the land and historical rights.
Restoration of the Mosque: Muslim groups demanded the reconstruction of Babri Masjid or allotment of a similar-sized plot to build a mosque, asserting that justice must be done and secular fabric should not worn out.
RATIONALE:-
The SC took a complete look at materials both parties gave, including historical records, religious books and A.S.I. reports, for deciding its judgement in the case. The reasoning of the court went as follows:
Title and Possession The court found that none of the parties could establish title over all disputed land. However, the longstanding belief in Hinduism of Lord Ram as a deity born on the site and prayed for thousands of years played into their hands, mainly since they also possessed and controlled over two-thirds of the outer courtyard. The court accepted that the inner courtyard was a disputed land over which Hindus and Muslims claimed ownership.
Legal Personality of the god: The court acknowledged that juristic entities like God Ram Lalla can own property and sue in their discrete names. The court also declared Lord Ram’s birthplace a distinct legal entity, thereby bolstering the Hindu claim on the spot.
Archaeological Evidence: The court based its judgment on the A.S.I. examination that discovered a construction below the mosque, which was non-Islamic. The court wasn’t definitive but instead said there was evidence of a “Hindu temple [having] continued to be at the disputed site before” — with several caveats- and added it into its final verdict.
Equitable Relief: In the balance of conflicting assertions, it was emphasised that a fair and reasonable claim must be resolved to ensure public order and religious peace. The court also asked the federal government to set up a trust to build a temple at the disputed site, while an alternate five-acre plot was allocated for the Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.
Impact of Demolition: The court said the demolitions at the disputed site in 1992 violated the law. Still, it had no relevance to suit title rights over properties subject matter Reference.
DEFECTS OF LAW:-
The Supreme Court’s job was not easy — the impugned order from Karnataka H.C. had two stark opposites in them, and balancing those differences to bring about a newfound solace might seem what it did or aimed at but many seemed flustered by its line of reasoning.
Opponents of the ruling say that much faith could not have been placed in this report as its findings did not conclusively prove a temple was present at precisely the spot on which the mosque was built. I have personally seen the archaeological evidence and questioned the court’s interpretation of it since, in most cases, outstanding discoveries were dismissed as unprovable without a doubt.
Equitable Relief: The decision to grant each party some land leads some to say the court, in reality, split Central Park and divided it. It has fuelled opposition accusations of political favouritism rather than impartial legal adjudication in the decision to give the Hindu parties control over that site and a separately acquired title elsewhere for Muslim sharif grievances.
Legal Precedent: Recognising the birthplace of Lord Ram as a judicial person sets an unholy precedence in Indian Jurisprudence and opens gates to other such claims leading regarding which would become complicating helping hand for the judiciary. Effects of the Judgement on Religion
Delayed Justice: The case lasted for decades, with the battle dragging on due to various legal and procedural delays. The long delay in delivering justice has left both sides exasperated, highlighting the challenges of dealing with sensitive religious issues through India’s court system.
INFERENCE:-
The judgment pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of M. Siddiq [Ram Janmabhumi Temple-5 J.] v. Suresh Das is a momentous milestone in Indian legal history, finally laying to rest one of the most vexing issues that has perpetually stared Indian society in its face since time immemorial! Apart from its wide-ranging implications in having attempted conciliation of several views on conflicting Hindu and Muslim claims of the site, it has an immense bearing on interfaith relations and general faith-based quests of society, as also judicial precedents in evidence formation while handling such permutations on historical or theological issues.
The judgment underlined the difficulty of making decisions based on arguments produced from religious, historical, and political standpoints. The verdict, according to the court, was aimed at “reconciliation” that could help Americans heal their bitter rifts over social and cultural issues amidst a wide range of ways they try to make sense of their religious beliefs in a legal context and is making variation amongst critics whether it should be applied.
The Ram Janmabhumi judgment reveals India’s nuanced interplay of law and religion. The use of Sriful is only helpful as a limited tool and part of an ongoing project to walk the tightrope between the community’s interest in ensuring respect for norms that underpin essential values or identities with constitutional principles balanced by preserving the rule of law and delivering justice timeously.