CASE REFERRED FROM M Siddique and Ors vs Mahant Suresh Das- Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010
FACTS: –
1. According to the Ramayana, a holy scripture, Ayodhya was thought to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, Shri Ram Janmabhoomi. Hindus also held the opinion that the birthplace had an old Ram temple. But in 1528, the first Mughal Emperor Babur demolished the temple and had the Babri Masjid mosque constructed there in its place. It was subsequently destroyed by the kar- saves in 1992. The construction and deconstruction of religious structures gave rise to a conflict between Hindus and Muslims, both of whom claim ownership of the contested location. The location in Ayodhya is thought to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, a highly venerated god, according to Hindu legend. On the same spot, the Babri Masjid was constructed in the sixteenth century by the general of the Mughal Emperor Babur.
2. Destroying the Babri Masjid: On December 6, 1992, a sizable mob of Hindu activists destroyed the Babri Masjid. Due to this incident, there were widespread riots and acts of violence all around the nation.
3. After the Babri Masjid was demolished, the Muslim community filed a number of legal actions to defend the structure’s rights.
4. The title to the land was the main point of contention. The location was claimed as belonging exclusively to both Hindu and Muslim parties. The main question was whether the Hindu community had a historical claim to the land because they believed it to be Lord Ram’s birthplace.
QUESTIONS RAISED: –
The competing claims of the Hindu and Muslim communities regarding ownership and control of the contested site in Ayodhya were at the centre of the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute. The two main issues that dominated the argument were:
1. Hindu Claim: The Hindu community claimed that the disputed location was where Lord Ram was born and that a temple honouring him, known as Ram Janmabhoomi, had been there before the Babri Masjid was built. They argued in favour of erecting a massive Ram temple there.
2. Muslim Claim: The Muslim community asserted that the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed location by Mir Baqi in the 16th century, had been there for generations. They demanded that the mosque be allowed to be repaired and used for Muslim worship in order to defend its rights.
The ownership and control of the contested location became the subject of a legal dispute as a result of these opposing claims. Both sides used elaborate historical, archaeological, and religious arguments in the case to bolster their respective positions. Finding out who actually owned the property and reconciling the conflicting religious and historical claims made by the Muslim and Hindu populations were the main issues.
The court case centred on topics such the historical proof of a mosque or temple existing there, the freedom to worship, the ownership of the land, and the degree of legal protection for religious buildings.
CONTENTION: –
The Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir controversy was a protracted, difficult, and divisive topic in India. It was centred on who should have jurisdiction over a sacred location in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which is extremely important to both the Muslim and Hindu communities. Here is a thorough description of the disagreement.
The issue has its origins in the 16th century, when the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya is thought to have been constructed by Babur’s general, Mir Baqi. Hindus claim that a pre-existing temple marking the birthplace of the highly respected deity Lord Ram was destroyed before the mosque was built.
Hindu organisations began calling for the restoration of the alleged birthplace of Lord Ram in the 19th century, which caused the dispute over the location to worsen. The Babri Masjid was sealed and both Muslims and Hindus were forbidden from praying there after a group of Hindu activists installed idols of Lord Ram there in 1949. This act sparked a court dispute and increased hostilities between the two communities.
Two separate lawsuits were filed in the Faizabad Civil Court in 1950, one by Gopal Singh Visharad on behalf of the Hindu community, requesting permission to worship the idols inside the mosque, and the other by the Sunni Central Waqf Board on behalf of the Muslim community, seeking possession of the site. This began the legal proceedings in the dispute.
The Court continued by stating that the fifth suit’s argument that the Deity was a legal individual was unfounded. This claim was dismissed by the court because, if granted legal personality, the contested property would no longer qualify as immovable property.
Regarding the third lawsuit, brought by the Nirmohi Akhara, the court ruled that their rights to the in question property were never referenced in the prior magistrate’s decision. The Nirmohi Akhara did not offer any evidence to support their assertion. Because they failed to submit the lawsuit for the Deity’s infirmity, the temple dismissed their claims that they were a Shebait. They were parties to the lawsuit since it was brought on their behalf. Overall, their lawsuit was dismissed because the statute of limitations had run out.
The information presented in the Supreme Court’s addenda supported the Hindu community’s claims that Ram Janam Bhoomi is believed to be located in the contested territory. After obtaining findings from the Archaeological Survey of India, which claimed that the Babri Masjid was not constructed on a piece of undeveloped land but rather a building from the 12th century, the Court continued to investigate its assertions. In spite of repeated riots, the Hindu community also refused to recognize the line and persisted in holding religious ceremonies there. As a result of their establishment of continuous, uninterrupted worship, the Hindus held the title.
Hindu Confession and Proof in the Matter at Hand:
1. Historical Belief: According to the Hindu community, Lord Ram, a highly venerated god, was born at the disputed site in Ayodhya, and that location once had a temple dedicated to the deity. They said that Babur’s general Mir Baqi destroyed the temple in order to build the Babri Masjid.
2. Archaeological Evidence: Hindu groups based their argument on archaeological data. They highlighted research from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that revealed there may have been a sizable building beneath the Babri Masjid that was clearly a Hindu temple and had characteristics of one.
3. Faith and Sentiment: The Hindu community contended that Lord Ram’s birthplace was connected to the sentiments and religious beliefs of millions of Hindus. They argued that their right to worship where they were born should be protected and that a massive Ram temple ought to be built there.
Muslim Admittance and Support:
1. Consistent Existence: According to the Muslim community, the Babri Masjid has been a place of prayer for Muslims for many decades. They said that Mir Baqi, a commander under Babur, had constructed the mosque, which had been used for prayers up until it was demolished in 1992.
2. Adverse control: According to Muslims, they have long-term, uninterrupted control of the contested site. They argued that their belongings and the prayers they had offered in the mosque for many years should be respected and safeguarded.
3. Legal Title: The Muslim parties maintained their ownership of the property and contended that the Sunni Waqf Board was legally entitled to make decisions on the Babri Masjid.
These claims served as the foundation for each side’s arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir conflict.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE: –
In November 2019, the Supreme Court issued its final decision, which is still the subject of debate. Some claimed that the Muslim community had an unfairly high burden of proof because of the Supreme Court’s treatment of their possession claim. It is incorrect to believe that such a temple existed because no Hindu writings expressly state that it was constructed immediately beneath the dome, and Babur’s memoir makes no reference of it being destroyed in order to construct the mosque. They consider it still unfair to rely solely on European texts. The decision was well-balanced, which is a different response. The Muslim and Hindu communities received a remedy for unjustified harm to their right to worship throughout their respective eras. However, the decision ended a protracted legal battle, and it offers the best solution to the issue that affects and is tied to the religious sensibilities of about 90% of Indians.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal of the decision and began hearing the case in August 2019. The Supreme Court issued its historic decision on November 9, 2019, following long hearings and the review of the available information.
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu groups, awarding them the whole 2.77-acre parcel of contested land. The court ordered the national government to set up a trust to manage the building of a Ram temple there. In addition, the court mandated that the government give the Sunni Central Waqf Board a separate 5-acre block of land in Ayodhya so that it can build a mosque.
The conflict over the Babri Masjid and Ram Mandir has been a major subject in Indian history, stirring up intense feelings and racial tensions. The Supreme Court’s decision was intended to put an end to the conflict and foster unity amongst the parties’ respective communities.
Defects in Law: –
In order to support the secular commitment of our nation to its people and make up for the Muslim community’s loss due to the unlawful destruction of the mosque, the court decided to award the Hindus the contested 2.77 acres of land while also awarding the Muslims 5 acres of land.It is necessary to alter the Waqf Property Act, which established the legal principle that Waqf property cannot be transferred to the party who has been wronged. A plot of land utilised as a public mosque is known as a waqf property. This Principle cannot trump the notion of justice set out in the Constitution. A typical feature of many of the mosques constructed by Middle Eastern invaders was that they were constructed on a temple or temple property. Furthermore, even after years of pursuing justice through the legal system, it would be unfair to deny the other parties access to property that has historically belonged to them simply because that obscenely constructed mosque is Waqf property.
–By VIVEK KHANDELWAL
References: –
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107745042/