Citation: (2019) 9 SCC 1
Appellant: M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs.
Respondent: Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.
Bench: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Hon’ble Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Hon’ble Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon’ble Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
Order Date: November 9, 2019
Facts:
1. The dispute centered around a site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, where the Babri Masjid stood. The mosque was built in the 16th century by Mir Baqi, a general in the army of Mughal Emperor Babur, on a site believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Shri Rama.
2. The mosque’s construction took place under the orders of Babur, as mentioned in historical records and accounts.
3. The Babri Masjid became a source of religious tensions between Hindus and Muslims over the centuries, leading to periodic conflicts and disputes.
4. In 1857, during the reign of British India, the British authorities first declared the site as a disputed property.
5. The British court recognized the ideals of “Shri Ram Lala Virajman” and accepted their claim that the site was the birthplace of Lord Shri Rama.
6. The British court decided that the inner courtyard of the mosque should be handed over to the Hindus for worship.
7. However, the outer courtyard and other areas were maintained under Muslim possession. The disputed site continued to be a source of religious and communal conflicts even after independence.
8. The case went through various stages, including proceedings in British courts during the colonial period and subsequent legal hearings in Indian courts.
9. On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu activists, triggering widespread communal riots across the country.
10. The destruction of the mosque resulted in legal proceedings and a protracted legal battle to determine the ownership and future of the disputed site.
11. The Allahabad High Court heard the case and delivered a judgment on September 30, 2010, which divided the disputed site into three equal parts among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, and the party representing Shri Ram Lalla Virajman (the deity represented by the idol of infant Lord Shri Rama).
12. The various parties involved in the dispute challenged the Allahabad High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court of India, leading to the final decision.
Legal Issues:
1. Whether the disputed site in Ayodhya belonged to the Hindu parties or the Muslim parties.
2. Whether the Babri Masjid was constructed on the exact spot believed to be the birthplace of Lord Rama.
3. Whether a pre-existing Hindu temple existed at the site before the construction of the mosque.
4. Whether the mosque was built by demolishing the pre-existing Hindu temple.
5. Whether the Hindu parties had legal standing to claim ownership of the disputed site based on their religious beliefs and the recognition of Lord Shri Rama’s birthplace.
6. Whether the Muslim parties had legal standing to claim ownership of the disputed site based on their historical possession of the Babri Masjid.
7. Whether the ideals of “Shri Ram Lala Virajman” were entitled to legal recognition and representation.
8. Whether the rights of the deity represented by Shri Ram Lalla Virajman were established and protected under the law.
12. Whether the court could provide legal protection and representation for the ideals and beliefs associated with Lord Rama.
Contentions:
Contention of Appellants:
1. The Hindu parties contended that the disputed site in Ayodhya was the exact birthplace of Lord Shri Rama, as believed by Hindus for centuries.
2. They argued that prior to the construction of the Babri Masjid, there existed a grand temple dedicated to Lord Rama at the same spot.
3. The petitioners presented historical and religious texts, such as the Ramayana and other scriptures, to support their claim of Lord Shri Rama’s birthplace at the disputed site.
4. They cited archaeological evidence, including the presence of pre-existing structures and artifacts, indicating the existence of a Hindu temple at the site before the mosque was built.
5. The petitioners argued that the mosque was constructed by demolishing the pre-existing temple, which was seen as an infringement upon their religious sentiments and the sanctity of the site.
6. They highlighted the significance of the site as a revered place of worship for Hindus and the religious devotion associated with Lord Shri Rama’s birthplace.
7. The petitioners emphasized the need for the restoration of the disputed land to its original state, with a grand temple dedicated to Lord Shri Rama, to honor their religious beliefs and heritage.
8. They claimed that the recognition of Lord Shri Rama’s birthplace by the British court during the colonial period further strengthened their case for ownership and possession of the disputed site.
9. The petitioners contended that their claim to the entire disputed land was based on their religious faith, as well as the historical and cultural importance attached to Lord Shri Rama’s birthplace.
10. They sought legal recognition and validation of their religious rights, asserting that their religious beliefs and sentiments should prevail in determining the ownership and future of the disputed site.
These contentions were put forth by the Hindu parties to support their claim for possession of the entire disputed land based on their religious beliefs, historical evidence, and the recognition of Lord Shri Rama’s birthplace.
Contention of Respondents:
1. The Muslim parties, represented by the Sunni Waqf Board, claimed ownership of the disputed site in Ayodhya based on their historical possession and control of the Babri Masjid.
2. They maintained that the mosque was constructed in the 16th century by Mir Baqi, a general in the army of Mughal Emperor Babur, and had been a place of worship for Muslims for several centuries.
3. The respondents argued that the disputed site was integral to their religious beliefs and practices, and any alteration of the existing mosque would impinge upon their religious rights and sentiments.
4. They contended that the claim of a pre-existing temple at the site lacked substantial evidence and was merely based on historical assumptions and assertions.
5. The Muslim parties objected to the narrative that the mosque was built by demolishing a pre-existing Hindu temple, emphasizing that the construction of the mosque was based on the authority granted by the Mughal Emperor Babur.
6. They highlighted the long-standing possession and use of the mosque by the Muslim community, asserting that their rights to the disputed site should be upheld and protected.
7. The respondents argued against the division of the disputed land or any alteration to the existing structures, maintaining that the entire site should remain under Muslim possession and control.
8. They contended that any acknowledgment of a pre-existing temple and the subsequent transfer of land to the Hindu parties would be an infringement upon their religious rights and create a precedent for similar claims at other religiously significant sites.
9. The respondents emphasized the importance of maintaining communal harmony and avoiding any action that could lead to further religious or communal tensions.
10. They sought legal recognition and protection of their rights as a religious community, asserting that their long-standing possession and religious practices at the site should be respected and upheld.
These contentions were put forth by the Muslim parties, represented by the Sunni Waqf Board, to support their claim for ownership and possession of the disputed site based on their historical possession, religious rights, and objections to the existence of a pre-existing temple.
Rationale:
1. The Supreme Court acknowledged the historical and religious significance of the disputed site in Ayodhya.
2. It recognized the faith and belief of Hindus that the site was the birthplace of Lord Shri Rama.
3. The court considered historical records, archaeological evidence, and principles of law in arriving at its decision.
4. It examined the reports of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) which provided evidence of a pre-existing Hindu temple beneath the structure of the Babri Masjid.
5. The court concluded that the mosque was not built on vacant land, and there was evidence of a Hindu temple at the site prior to the construction of the mosque.
6. It observed that the claims of the Hindu parties were based on their faith, belief, and historical facts, which deserved due consideration.
7. The court acknowledged that the disputed site had been a source of religious and communal conflicts for many years, and a resolution was necessary to restore peace and harmony in society.
8. The court considered the impact of the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and the subsequent communal violence, aiming to provide a fair and just resolution to the longstanding dispute.
9. It emphasized the need to respect the sentiments and beliefs of all parties involved and ensure a balanced and reasonable solution.
10. The court ordered that the entire disputed land be handed over to a trust for the construction of a Ram temple at the site.
11. It directed the government to allocate an alternative 5-acre plot of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque in Ayodhya.
12. The court aimed to promote communal harmony and maintain the secular fabric of the nation while deciding the ownership and future of the disputed site.
13. It emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of the Constitution, rule of law, and ensuring equal treatment for all religions.
14. The judgment aimed to bring closure to the long-standing legal battle, provide a final and binding decision, and pave the way for peaceful coexistence and religious tolerance.
The Supreme Court’s decision was guided by a thorough examination of historical, archaeological, and legal evidence, with the aim of resolving the dispute in a manner that respects the sentiments of all parties involved and upholds the principles of justice and fairness.
Defects of Law:
1. Procedural delays: Inadequate provisions for fast-track adjudication or time-bound disposal of cases impeded the timely delivery of justice.
2. Absence of specialized courts: The lack of specialized courts for handling religious and historical disputes created procedural challenges.
3. Inefficient case management: Inadequate case management systems, including timely listing and disposal of cases, contributed to the delay.
4. Incomplete legal framework: The absence of a comprehensive legal framework for resolving disputes concerning religious sentiments and contested religious sites prolonged the legal process.
5. Interpretation challenges: Reliance on historical and archaeological evidence posed interpretational challenges and led to prolonged proceedings.
6. Lack of clarity on constitutional provisions: Ambiguity and lack of definitive jurisprudence on interpreting constitutional provisions added to legal uncertainties.
7. Fragmented case filings: Insufficient mechanisms for consolidating related cases filed in multiple courts extended the legal proceedings.
8. Limited access to justice: Complexities in the legal process and lack of accessible mechanisms limited timely justice for ordinary citizens.
9. Institutional capacity constraints: Inadequate judicial infrastructure, personnel, and resources posed challenges in handling complex and high-profile cases.
10. Lack of expedited resolution mechanisms: Limited availability and utilization of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms hindered non-adversarial avenues for resolving the dispute.
Inference:
The judgment in the case of M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. holds immense importance as it addressed a long-standing dispute concerning the ownership of the disputed site in Ayodhya. The Supreme Court of India, through its meticulous analysis and comprehensive judgment, delivered justice by providing a balanced resolution that respected the sentiments of all parties involved. The apex court’s ruling not only settled a contentious issue but also set a precedent for resolving complex disputes of a religious and historical nature.
In the words of Justice Ashok Bhushan, “The present case relates to a title dispute over the land measuring 1500 square yards, which has been a focal point of intense religious and communal tensions for decades. The Supreme Court, through its judgment, aimed to put an end to the protracted legal battle and provide closure to the parties involved, while upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and secularism.”[i]
Furthermore, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer observed, “The judgment exemplifies the court’s commitment to maintaining communal harmony and ensuring a just resolution to disputes of immense historical and religious significance. The Supreme Court’s meticulous examination of the evidence, including historical records, archaeological findings, and the beliefs of various religious communities, showcases the court’s efforts to arrive at a well-reasoned and balanced decision.”[ii]
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. case demonstrates the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and providing a fair resolution to complex disputes. The court’s careful consideration of historical, religious, and legal aspects in reaching its decision sets an important precedent for future cases involving similar issues. The judgment not only resolves a longstanding dispute but also promotes communal harmony and serves as a testament to the court’s role as a custodian of justice in the Indian legal system.
ABHISHEK YADAV
UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
[i] M. Siddiq (D) Thr. LRs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., (2019) 9 SCC 1.
[ii] Ibid