COURT – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PETITIONERS – M. SIDDIQ (deceased), MAULNA ASSHAD RASHIDI, SUNNI WAQF BOARD.
RESPONDENT – MAHANT SURESH DAS, and Others, NIRMOHI AKHADA, BHAGWANT SHRI RAM VIRAJMAN, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, DISTRICT COLLECTOR (Faizabad), ALL INDIA MAHASABHA, ARYA MAHA PRASESHIK SABHA, ALL INDIA SANATAN DHARMA SABHA.
BENCH- RANJAN GOGAI, SHARAD A BOBDE, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN, ABDUL NAZEER.
Facts – This Milestone ruling is popularly known as ‘Ayodhya Janam Bhoomi Vivad’, ‘Ram Janam Bhoomi – Babri Masjid Dispute’, ‘Ayodhya land dispute Judgment’ and ‘Ramlala Janam Bhoomi dispute’, We all know the historic city, Ayodhya is the divine birthplace of Lord Ram. It was believed by many Hindu legends that the Ram temple stood at his birthplace. But In 1528 the Ram temple was devastated by the First Mughal Emperor Babur who constructed a Masjid on the same site known as ‘Babri Masjid’. In 1992, the Babri masjid was vandalised by a Hindu mob because it is believed that the mosque was built by demolishing the Hindu temple. On the other hand, many Muslims thought that Babur made a masjid on vacant land. This establishment and demolition of religious landmark buildings provoked a rift between Hindu and Muslim communities.1 To maintain law and order the whole area was divided into two parts by the British Colonial Government. The outer area was given to the Hindus which had many Hindu elements such as Sita Rasoi and Ramchabutra and Muslims were given the Inner portion.
1 Mamta Kumari, Case Summary: M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das, LAWLEX.ORG (May 27, 2020), Case Summary: M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs Mahant Suresh Das & Ors – LawLex.Org.
Despite equally divided land to both parties, the dispute didn’t come to an end both parties were excluded permanently from each other. The first suit was filed in 1885 towards building a Ram temple in the outer courtyard by Mahant Raghubar Das. But to maintain the peace and order the district court of Faizabad rejected the order. This decision of the court turned into a new point. On 22nd December 1949 at midnight, a group of 50-60 Hindu people broke the lock and devastated the mosque and placed lord Ram’s idol in the central dome. The second suit was filed by both communities. The Judge of Faizabad District Court sealed up the disputed area as per section 145 of CrPc.
Again in 1959, The third suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara claiming the possession of the land. On the other hand, in 1961, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf and other Muslim People filed a fourth suit in the court of law claiming, that there was no deity at the time of building the Mosque. After all, the lawsuit was filed by none other but the god himself, Bhagwan Ramlalla Virajman through esteemed Justice Deoki Nandan Agarwal. This case was shifted from the civil court of Faizabad to Allahabad High Court. Allahabad High Court in his Judgement dissected this disputed land into three parts allotted it to the aforementioned three parties and passed an Interim order to maintain the status Quo in the disputed property. But this judgement did not bring contentment to any party and created violence in the whole of India. Thus, the Appeal and Special Leave Petition were filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the parties. The Supreme Court Ordered the parties to present a written statement and specify what they are praying for.
Legal Issues:2
1) Whether the Mosque was built by devastating the Hindu temple in Ayodhya? 2) Is the Babri Masjid situated on the spot considered to be the birthplace of Ram? 3) Does a deity have the right to represent himself in a court of law?
4) Whether a Ram Janam Bhoomi acknowledged as a juristic entity?
5) Whether the decision of Allahabad for the division of disputed land to Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla is considered valid?
6) Whether the ownership of disputed land belonged to the Hindu fraction or the Muslim fraction.
2 M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 1.
7) Whether the Court grant legal protection and validation to the beliefs and principles connected to lord Ram?
Contentions:
The stance of Respondent:
1. The Hindu parties asserted that the disputed site is entitled to only Hindu communities as it was believed for centuries that there was a temple before the Mosque.
2. It was also contended that the deity’s sacred land is inalienable, so it is entitled to legal protection and validation in the court of the law. In the case of Guruvayoor Devswom Managing Committee vs. CK Rajan3the court held that the temple can be considered as the Juristic Entity.
3. The respondent showcased pivotal documentation such as historical and religious texts and other scriptures to boost their contention regarding the disputed site as the holy place of lord Sriram.
4. The respondent also referenced the archaeological evidence, such as pre-existing structures and artefacts which proved that there was a temple at the site where the mosque was built.
5. The other respondent Nirmohi Akhara contended that the disputed site had been in his possession since centuries back and that he had the absolute right to manage and perform religious rituals there.
6. The Respondent also highlighted that the British Court also accepted and claimed that there was a Ram Lalla temple on the disputed site.
7. The respondent parties urged the court to believe in the Archaeological Survey of India as it indicated the evidence that the temple-like structure, Vishnu- Hari inscription was founded in the disputed site before the establishment of the mosque, which also proves that the autocratic Mughals demolished the temple, so they demanded the whole disputed area.
3 Guruvayoor Devswom Managing Committee vs. CK Rajan (2003) 7 SCC 546.
8. The construction of the mosque over the remains of another devotional building contradicts Islamic principles, thereby questioning the status of Babri Masjid as a Mosque.4
9. The respondent side concludes by saying no compromise should be accepted in the Ram Janam Bhoomi.
The Stances of Petitioner:
1. The petitioner contended that the Mosque was built on the vacant land and no earlier temple was installed on the disputed site.
2. The petitioner argued that any alteration in the disputed site by establishing the temple infringes on their religious rights and sentiments.
3. The petitioner contradicted the statement given by the respondent that the mosque was built by demolishing the temple.
4. The idol was secretly placed in the Babri Masjid on December 22-23, 1949. 5. The petitioner also highlighted the point that the mosque was maintained by the British authorities since Babar Sovereignty.
6. It was also claimed by the petitioner that the mosque has been used for offering regularly since its inception in 1528 till December 16, 1949.
Rationale:
The final decision on Ram Mandir was pronounced by the Constitutional bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi on November 9, 2019.
1. The Supreme Court examines all the historical relevance and religious values of the disputed land in Ayodhya.
2. It acknowledged the Hindu practices and belief that the site was lord Rama’s nativity.
3. All historical records along with archaeological evidence evaluated by the Honourable Court and stating that the Mosque was not constructed on vacant land but rather dismantled the temple.
4 Suvanwesh Das, CASE COMMENT ON THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT OF M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS V. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS, Manupatra (February 8, 2021), Case Comment on the Supreme Court Judgement of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (manupatra.com).
4. The court observed that the Muslim Community lacked substantiated evidence regarding the possession of a contentious site between 1528 to 1860 and held that they failed to fulfil the fundamental criteria for adverse possession so they could not make a claim.
5. The court also contended in favour of Muslims that the demolition of Babri Masjid was the Violation of the rule of law and a remedy will be provided for this wrongdoing.
6. The court also rendered his observation on suit 3 filed by Nirmohi Akhara and decided to assign the responsibility of Management of the new Ram Mandir because Nirmohi Akhara had a historical presence on the Ayodhya’s Disputed land.
7. The court took account of precedents from M Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India,5 where it was decided that the Mosque were not indispensable to Islam. making 8. At last the court decided to give possessory title to the outside courtyard to the Hindu fractions. The central Government requested to formulate a proper structure of land given to the Hindu temple.
9. The entire disputed land (2.77-acre land) was assigned to the Hindus for making a new ram mandir and alternative 5-acre land was given to the Sunni Waqf Board to build the mosque.
10. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the balance of Justice and fairness and resolved the dispute in a manner that respects the sentiment of all involved in this Historical case.
Defect Of Law:
• The Allahabad High Court didn’t adequately address the issue of the ownership of land rather divided the land into three parts. • The lengthy legal process created tension and violence.
• The another reason could be the lack of legal precedent regarding this dispute to resolve controversial disputes like this.
5 Dr. M. Ismail Faruqi v. Union Of India, A.I.R 1994 SC 605A.
• There was a waste of time, in the beginning, trying to resolve such sentimental matters through the help of meditation or alternative dispute resolution.
• However, our legal still proceeds very slowly and this issue dates back a long time.
• Lack of infrastructure, mechanism and jurisprudence extended the legal proceedings.
•
Inference :
This ‘Ayodhya Disputed land ‘case is the second longest groundbreaking verdict (1045-page long) in the history of India by the Supreme Court after the Keshvananda Bharti case. This judgement has not just settled the contentious issue by respecting the sentiment of the party but also established the precedent for resolving the critical dispute of a historical and religious nature.
The thorough scrutiny of the evidence of historical records, archaeological surveys, beliefs and faith of various religious communities highlighted the efforts how the court diligently reach to a reasoned and equitable decision and uphold the principles of law and equity.
The case is also notable because all the Prime Ministers of India from Jawahar Lal Nehru to Narendra Modi involved as witnesses in the history of the Indian Judiciary.
The long-running case in India has come to an end but still raises a concern that it successfully end. However, this dispute has already taken
many lives and shaken our nation’s peace and harmony. As a law-abiding citizen, it’s time to unify and put a full stop to this matter.6
6 Meghna Shreman v. Dhananjay Shreman , M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS V. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS, ( June 23, 2022) (PDF) M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (researchgate.net) .