CASE COMMENT
M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS. VS MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS.
Equivalent Citation: 2020-1 SCC 1
Date of Judgement: November 9, 2019
Case Number: 10866-10867 of 2010
Petitioner: M Siddiq (deceased)
Respondent: Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
- FACTS
The Ayodhya Dispute is one of the most historically significant and communally sensitive legal issues in India, pertaining to the rightful claim over land in Ayodhya proclaimed by both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus presume this land to be the birthplace of Lord Ram (aka Ram Janmabhoomi), whereas the Muslims refer to it as the place where the Babri Masjid was located, built by Mughal general Mir Baqi in 1528 under Emperor Babur’s orders.
Conflicts began in the late 1850s. To establish peace, the British constructed a wall separating the mosque’s inner courtyard from the outer temple courtyard. In 1885, Mahant Raghubir Das
Initiated legal proceedings to build a temple in the outer courtyard used by the Hindus, but was dismissed to avoid communal violence. The conflict intensified in 1949 when the installation of Ram idols in the mosque’s central dome ignited communal hostility. The premises were sealed by the Faizabad Civil Court under Section 145 of the CrPC. The gates were ordered to be reopened for Hindu worshippers by the Faizabad District Court in 1986. This sparked agitation from the Muslim community. The matter was further taken to the Allahabad High Court in 1989. The dispute reached the breaking point when the ‘Karsevaks’ pulled down the Babri Masjid, setting off nationwide protests. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court divided the land into three portions: 1/3 to Ram Lalla (deity), 1/3 to Nirmohi Akhara (Hindu Sect), and 1/3 to the Sunni Waqf board. Yet all the parties involved challenged the verdict in the Supreme Court. The Hindu claim was based on the argument that the mosque was built over a razed Ram temple, supported by the 1928 Faizabad Gazette and architectural fragments like the Kasauti pillars. They also alleged that deity worship at the site continued even after the mosque was constructed. While recognizing the religious significance of Ayodhya to Hindus, the Muslim side contended that there was no lawful Hindu claim to the property. They asserted the ongoing use of the mosque premises until 1949 and objected to the placement of idols in 1949. The Nirmohi Akhara maintained their entitlement as Shebaits, who are the caretakers of the deity’s property, while the Hindu side filed a lawsuit in the name of the deity, contending that the Lord’s rights held ultimate authority. This case reflects the complex intertwining of law, faith, and politics and illustrates how firmly held religious emotions can fuel extended legal battles over sacred places of worship.
- ISSUES RAISED
- Did India’s limitation law apply to the suits filed by Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board, and Ram Lalla?
- Could Ram Janmabhoomi be recognized as a legal persona or juristic entity?
- Was there possibly an old temple on the disputed land? If yes, would the Hindu community have a valid claim or legal entitlement in that case?
- CONTENTIONS
Appellant’s side
The claimant asserted that no Hindu idols were placed within the premises of the Babri Masjid until the night of December 22-23, 1949. The covert and unauthorized positioning of idols was interpreted as a disturbance rather than a reaffirmation of historical worship. The claimants dismissed the continuous worship of Ram Lalla or the presence of Asthana (ruling deity) within the mosque premises before this incident. They highlighted that the Babri Masjid was a vibrant centre of worship, where Namaz (Friday prayers) and regular prayers were performed until December 1949. Historical evidence shows that the Mughal emperors financially sustained the mosque’s operations, a practice later upheld by the British colonial administration, reinforcing its enduring Islamic identity. The claimant affirmed that the outer courtyard might have held Hindu connections, like the Janmasthan temple, but asserted that Muslim worship happened within the mosque itself. They asserted that the land was regarded as Waqf property—a religious trust under Islamic law—because it had been a site of communal Muslim worship from the mosque’s establishment in 1528 until its violation in 1949. Thus, they affirmed consistent legal and worship practices in possession and usage of the place as a mosque and questioned the Hindu claims over the inner courtyard.
Respondent’s side
The Hindu side argues that the cruelties done by the Mughal invaders, mainly Babur, are now due for restitution under the Indian Constitution. During Babur’s attack, several Hindu temples, consisting of the one at the disputed site, were ruined, and Hindus were disallowed their religious rights. The legal claim is based on uninterrupted ownership tracing back to 12th-century saints, underscoring that the property belonging to a deity is legally incontestable. The Hindu site dismissed the existence of the Islamic religious endowment called the Waqf Board over the land, claiming that Hindus retained ownership despite intrusion by Muslims. Evidence like the Kasauti pillars and other temple relics, cited in the 1928 Faizabad Gazetteer, bolsters the assertion that the mosque was built using materials from a razed Hindu temple. A significant legal issue highlighted is that Lord Rama, as a legal persona, was not a party to the earlier lawsuits. An independent suit (suit number 5) was initiated to safeguard the deity’s interests, concerned that the individual parties’ agendas could override the religious rights of Lord Rama. It also asserted that Islamic laws forbid constructing mosques on the remnants of ancient sacred edifices. Thus, the Babri Masjid cannot be regarded as an authorized mosque under Islamic religious laws. This contention plans to strengthen the Hindu claim by questioning the mosque’s religious authenticity.
- RATIONALE
The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case affirmed the validity of historical and legal arguments made by both the Hindus and Muslims, highlighting the principles of law, faith, and secularism. The court emphasized that the Hindu community’s existence and recognition of religious presence at the disputed site trace back to the British era. A prominent example was the erection of Lord Ram’s idols in 1873, which highlighted the formal recognition of Hindu worship at the site. The court also examined the doctrine of adverse possession, which allows a person without legal title to assert possession and ownership through prolonged and consistent occupation. Yet, it was concluded that the Muslims could not provide evidence to prove possession of the disputed property between 1528 and 1860, and therefore could not assert adverse possession. The judgment cited the Ismail Faruqui case, where the Supreme Court held that a mosque is not an indispensable element of the Islamic faith, which influenced the Court’s decision. The court reinstated India’s unique model of religious secularism, which surpasses mere tolerance by proactively guaranteeing equal treatment of all religions. It also accepted that the demolition of the Masjid was an infringement of legal principles, calling for redress for the Muslim community. The Hindu community’s assertions were bolstered by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) findings, which highlighted that the Babri Masjid was constructed over a structure dating back to the 12th century. Moreover, the Court held that the Hindu community consistently conducted religious rituals at the site despite disturbances, demonstrating continuous and uninterrupted worship, an important foundation for establishing legal possession. Equitably addressing the claims of both communities, the court granted the disputed 2.77 acres to a trust for building the Ram Temple, acknowledging Hindu devotion and belief. To compensate for the loss caused by the mosque’s destruction and maintain the spirit of secularism, the court also awarded 5 acres of alternate land to the Muslim community for building a mosque, thus ensuring communal peace and harmony along with justice.
- DEFECTS OF LAW
The Waqf Property Act protects Waqf assets by preventing their transfer to those who have been wronged legally. A Waqf property refers to land used as a mosque, which is open to the public. However, this principle should not overrule the basic notion of justice as guaranteed in the Constitution. Traditionally, numerous mosques established by Middle Eastern invaders were erected on locations that formerly contained Hindu temples or other sacred sites. This context brings up important questions about lawful possession and equity. Despite long legal battles, it would be unjust to withhold legitimate access to land historically owned by another community merely because the mosque is designated as Waqf property. Thus, there is a need to revise the Waqf Property Act to ensure it does not become an obstacle to securing justice in cases where constitutional principles and historical ownership are contested. Justice and equity must override strict legal doctrines when they clash with the rights of historically dispossessed communities. Disallowing access to land based on its Waqf status would lead to unjust treatment and cause ignorance towards the complex history behind such properties. Ultimately, legal amendments should reflect constitutional principles and historical contexts to justly settle disputes over Waqf properties.
- INFERENCE
Mahant Das initiated the first legal action to construct a religious edifice in the outer courtyard of the property, but the court dismissed the plea in the interest of maintaining communal peace and upholding legal order. The civil court, prominent in colonial India, could not resolve the issue and missed a chance to divide the land harmoniously, as the plaintiffs were satisfied with the courtyard, which they believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. Rather than following a “divide and rule” approach, the court allowed tensions between the two communities to intensify. Amid the escalating tensions, both communities filed a second lawsuit, causing the Faizabad Civil Court to block the disputed property, which was rather a wise decision to avoid partiality. In November 2019, the Supreme Court delivered its final judgement, which remains controversial. Critics argue that Muslims faced an unjust burden of proof concerning ownership and that depending entirely on non-Indian sources was biased and inequitable. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s judgement balanced the interests of both parties by awarding solutions that recognized their rights to worship. Ultimately, the ruling brought closure to a decades-long dispute and proposed a realistic solution to an emotionally charged issue linked to the faith of the majority of Indians.
NAME – JHANAVI MISHRA
COLLEGE – ILS LAW COLLEGE, PUNE