Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010
Facts :
The Ayodhya dispute is one of India’s important and controversial legal fights. This fight is about a place that Hindus think was the birthplace of Lord Ram. Understanding the key events can help to understand this complex case. In 1528, commander Mir Baqi, under Mughal emperor Babur, built the Babri Masjid. This started a long debate over who owned the site. The first time people went to court about this was in 1885. At that time, Mahant Raghubir Das asked if he could build a cover the mosque in the Faizabad district court. His ask was turned down this was one of the first attempts to say that Hindus had a right to this place.
In 1949, statues of Ram Lalla were put inside the Babri Masjid. This action led to two important court cases in 1950 by Gopal Singh Visharad and Ramchandra Paramhans. They wanted permission to worship these idols at this site . Another group called Nirmohi Akhara also became part of this dispute in 1959 when it filed a case asking for ownership of this site while UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs claimed it held title in 1961. Things heated up further in 1986 when a local judge ruled that Hindu worshippers could have access Many Hindus saw this as an important win.
These feelings grew higher through the late 1980s and early 1990s as more Hindi nationalists showed support for building a temple on nearby grounds by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) which took place in 1989. A landmark event happened on December 6, 1992, when ‘kar sevaks’ tore down Babri Masjid. This violent event led to riots across many communities and upset many people nationwide. Following this, the government acquired 67.7 acres of land around the disputed site in 1993, an action that raised questions about legality and fairness.
The Allahabad High Court began hearing the title dispute case in April 2002, and by 2003, the Archaeological Survey of India presented evidence suggesting the existence of a Hindu temple beneath the mosque. On September 30, 2010, the High Court divided the disputed land into three parts—one-third each to Ram Lalla, the Sunni Waqf Board, and the Nirmohi Akhara. However, the Supreme Court stayed this verdict on May 9, 2011, maintaining the status quo. The Supreme Court’s day-to-day hearings on the dispute commenced in August 2019, culminating in a landmark judgment on November 9, 2019, which granted the entire disputed land to Ram Lalla and directed the government to allocate 5 acres for a mosque. The foundation of the Ram temple was laid by Prime Minister Modi on August 5, 2020, and the temple was inaugurated on January 22, 2024. This timeline encapsulates the historical, legal, and social dimensions of the Ayodhya dispute.
The government obtained 67.7 acres of land near the contentious area in 1993, which sparked a debate about its legality and fairness. The Allahabad High Court started reviewing the title dispute case in April 2002. By 2003, the Archaeological Survey of India had provided proof indicating that a Hindu temple was once located under the mosque. The High Court split the disputed land into three equal parts on September 30, 2010, allocating one part to Ram Lalla, another to the Sunni Waqf Board, and a final third to the Nirmohi Akhara. On May 9, 2011, this decision was paused by the Supreme Court keeping things as they were. The Supreme Court’s daily hearings on this disagreement launched in August 2019 leading up to a historic ruling on November 9, 2019 where all contested land was granted to Ram Lalla and instructions were given to assign five acres for construction of a mosque by government. Prime Minister Modi initiated building of Ram temple there on August 5, 2020 with official opening held January 22,2024. This sequence of events provides an overview of historical, legal and societal aspects of Ayodhya dispute.
Issues raised :
- Whether the disputed land belongs to the Sunni Waqf Board or to the Hindu parties?
- Whether the demolition of the Babri Masjid was justified?
- Whether the government’s acquisition of the disputed land and surrounding area was valid?
Contention :
Hindu groups have claimed that a temple was in place before the construction of the Babri Masjid in 1528. They believe that the Babri Masjid was built after tearing down the earlier temple and that the divine idols inside the temple merited its demolition. Contrarily, Muslim groups, represented by the Sunni Waqf Committee, alleged that the Babri Masjid was a legitimate property authorized by Waqf and used by Muslims for centuries. They argued it was illegal to demolish as it violated their rights and they disputed Hindus’ historical claims.
Rationale :
The verdicts on the Ayodhya case were influenced by an attempt to strike a balance between law and social harmony. In 2010, Allahabad High Court passed a judgment that divided disputed territory into three sections. It suggested that neither group had complete control over the location. The court aimed for a compromise solution acknowledging both Hindus’ and Muslims’ historical ties to this site. However, this approach has faced critique due to not handling deep-seated troubles and past wrongdoings suffered by both communities.
In 2019, the Supreme Court changed its approach in a significant decision. The court accepted that the Babri Masjid was unlawfully taken down and highlighted the importance of finding a solution that would strengthen social peace and national unity. The court sided with the Hindu party, giving them all of the contested to Ramlalla and ruling that the government should build a temple on a separate 5 acres plot. This decision’s basis lay in viewing the Hindu claim to this place as historically important and considering giving land for a mosque as an act of goodwill towards Muslims.
The Supreme Court’s decision was seen as an attempt to resolve a longstanding argument while dealing with India’s complicated socio-political conditions. The court recognized the difficulty in reaching justice in cases related to religious beliefs, historical grievances, and the need for civic unity.
Defects of law :
The controversy about Ayodhya highlighted many problems in India’s law regarding property rights and religious sites. The main objection against the verdict was connected to the Acquisition of Certain Areas in Ayodhya Act 1993. This act let the government disputed land without the agreement of those involved. Critics suggested that the Act is random and goes against Articles 14, 25, and 26 of the Indian Constitution violating basic rights. In addition, how they went about acquiring raised doubts about legality and whether they followed proper legal procedures.
Besides, in 2010 the Allahabad High Court termed land allotment as a failed deal because it did not fully consider historical contexts or legal factors of this case. The judgment did not explain what they meant by “Babri Masjid demolition” or refer to building temple in history terms. Lack of clarity led to more unanswered questions and kept tensions alive within society.
Additionally, some people viewed the Supreme Court’s verdict to give land to Hindu groups while also instructing the government to offer a different place for a mosque as an insufficient solution to the past wrongs experienced by the Muslim community. Critics believed that this method didn’t completely deal with the effects of tearing down the mosque and its wider impacts on religious minorities in India. These shortcomings in judicial reasoning and structure emphasize the difficulties of settling disagreements that are not just legal, but also closely linked with issues of identity, faith, and history.
Dissenting Judgment :
Although the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ayodhya case was unanimous, there were disagreements in public debates, particularly from various Muslim groups and civil rights advocates. Some individuals expressed concerns that the ruling favored Hindus at Muslims’ expense, thereby undermining the values of secularism defined by the Indian Constitution. They suggested that the verdict did not acknowledge enough how Muslim worshippers had used Babri Masjid for centuries. Critics even highlighted that this decision may lead to circumstances where historical events emerge more significant than individuals’ legal rights during communal conflicts. Furthermore, they were uncertain whether basing court rulings on architectural evidence for religious beliefs may prompt other communities to present similar justifications for their demands, thereby escalating existing discord. Advocates for a minority viewpoint proposed a more equitable outcome carefully considering both parties’ sentiments and rights and emphasized on dialogue and reconciliation over separation.
Inference :
The Ayodhya case is a significant turning point in India’s legal and societal history. It involves religious identity, historical issues and the complicate rule of law. The Supreme Court issued a judgment on this matter 2019, which received differing responses. A substantial number of Hindus saw it as an acknowledgment of their claims, while Muslims and secularists worried about what it means for the of minorities and societal harmony. When reviewed, one can wonder if this decision truly served the cause of justice or merely echoed the current socio-political environment that prevails. The case presents wider questions about justice in diverse societies and how far legal rulings can possibly redress historical injustices. At its core, the Ayodhya trial isn’t just a legal dispute but signifies a struggle for identity and acceptance within a varied society. The building of the Ram temple and upgrading Ayodhya to become a pilgrimage destination introduces an opportunity for making amends. However, if that will result in genuine comprehension and peaceful cohabitation amongst Hindu and Muslim communities is yet to be proven. It remains as a poignant reminder that inspires introspection.
Sharmila
Swami Devi Dayal Group of Professional Institutions, Golpura, Panchkula
Kurukshetra University