Ayodhya: The Final Verdict
Ayodhya: The Final Verdict
Ayodhya dispute, which followed 492 years in the social domain and 134 years in the court has finally been settled. The people who carry on a movement over a piece of land for over half a millennium. What explains that they neither forgot nor any amount of atrocities made them give up their claims on the land.
The Ram Mandir perhaps is the only example in human history when people struggled and fought for a period of over five hundred years to regain a piece of land from their invaders who had destroyed one of their holiest spots and thought they had exterminated their religion.
The fact that the Rama Janmabhumi site in Ayodhya is well-established as a divine site for Hindu pilgrimage, is reason enough to protect its functioning as a Hindu sacred site, complete with proper Hindu temple architecture.
Five-judge Supreme Court special bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Other judges in the bench included CJI-designate Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhusan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.
Ram Janmabhoomi Temple at Ayodhya is more about India’s cultural richness than religious belief.
The SC Verdicts say:
Supreme Court as the final arbiter of Constitutions as well as the laws & rules of the legislation, must preserve the sense of equality that the faiths and beliefs of one individual do not check with the liberties and beliefs of another.
The Constitution does not make a difference between the faith and belief of one religion and another. All forms of faiths, tenet, worship, are equal. The court does not decide the title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence.
For resolving title to the disputed property, the court uses established principles of evidence to mediate upon which party has established a claim to the immovable property.
- Historical records and travelogue show that the Hindus prayed around the disputed site. But these must be dealt with circumspection. Courts must go by evidence.
- The Supreme Court has said that there is no evidence of ownership between 13 to 16th centuries.
- The Supreme Court said that the ASI’s report can’t be dismissed as theory and junked the theory of pre-existence of an Idgah at the disputed site. “Babri mosque wasn’t constructed on virgin land.
- ASI has not said if a temple was razed to make the mosque. Although the mosque was built on a temple.
- A huge structure like a temple under the Masjid can’t be the basis of claiming ownership now.
The SC held that the Allahabad High Court was wrong to divide the land between the three main parties — Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, and the Sunni Waqf Board; as the complex was a composite whole. SC has concluded that the three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable. Even as a matter of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, the solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible.
On the balance of probabilities, there is obvious proof to show that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unhampered although there was a grill-brick wall in 1857. As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a dominance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to 1857.
The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857. so, SC ruled that the Hindus would get the entire disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya.
Highlights:
- Supreme Court gives historic verdict on Ayodhya dispute on 9th November 2019
- Special bench of five judges ruled in favor of Ramlalla
- Directed Central government to build a trust in three months to build Ram temple
- Directed Central/State government to give 5 acres of land separately to build a new mosque
The placing of idols was a blasphemy. Muslims have been denied the right to worship by demolition. The Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied. The Constitution postulates the equality of all faiths. 5 acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board.
The land shall be allotted either by:
(a) The Central Government of the land acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993; or
(b) The State Government at a suitably prominent place in Ayodhya;
Who Will Get What
| Party | The Does The Verdict Say |
| Ram Lalla Virajmaan | 2.77 Acre of the disputed land. |
| Muslim Side | 5 Acre suitable land at the prominent place for building the mosque. |
| Central Government | Control the 2.77 Acre land, has to frame scheme within 3 months and set up a trust for construction of temple. |
| Nirmodi Akhara | Dismissed their plea for control of disputed land, may get representation in trust. |
Key Takeaways:
1. The entire 2.77 acres of disputed land to deity Ram Lalla.
2. The Centre or Uttar Pradesh government to allot an alternative 5-acre land to the Muslims.
3. Centre to consider granting some kind of representation to Nirmohi Akhara in setting up of trust.
4. The Shia plea for ownership of the land has been dismissed. SC also dismisses plea of Nirmohi Akhara seeking control of entire disputed land.
5. The Union government to set up a trust in 3 months for the construction of the Ram Mandir at the disputed site.
6. The underlying structure below the disputed site at Ayodhya was not an Islamic structure.
7. The Hindus consider the disputed site as the birthplace of Lord Ram while the Muslims also say the same about the Babri Masjid site.
8. The faith of the Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site where the Babri Masjid once stood cannot be disputed.
9. The 1992 demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid mosque was a violation of law.
10. The Sunni Waqf Board has failed to provide evidence in the dispute case and Hindus have established their case that they were in possession of the outer courtyard of the disputed site.
What is the Case?
Ayodhya Ram Mandir Case is a title dispute between three parties over 2.77 hectares of land in Ayodhya.
A Hindu temple adorned the site until 1528 when Mughal forces led by Mir Baqi forcibly demolished it with a mosque. The mosque was later demolished in 1992, sparking riots that killed nearly 2,000 people.
Who are the Litigants?
There are three main parties to the title dispute case–
- Nirmohi Akhara
Nirmohi Akhara is a group of Hindu monks who are devotees of Lord Ram and manage many temples and mathas.
They filed a suit in 1959 in the court in Ayodhya claiming to be the custodian of the property, seeking complete possession of the property.
2. Sunni Waqf Board
Sunni Wakf Board is a body that oversees Sunni Islamic properties endowed for religious or charitable purposes.
They filed a suit in 1961 in local court in Ayodhya seeking declaration of rights and possession over the property.
3. Ram Lalla Vijraman
In 1989 suit was filed in Allahabad High Court on behalf of the deity and the birthplace claiming title over the property. It was filed by senior advocate Deoki N Agarwal and currently being represented by Trilok Nath Pandey.
Can the Deity be a Litigant?
- Lord Ram as an infant is himself one of the litigants.
- Under Indian laws, a Hindu deity can be a litigant since they are considered as “juristic person” with the right to sue and be sued. (In fact, the treatment of God as ‘Juristic Persons’ started under the British who held that the legal owner of properties owned by the temple is the deity himself.)
- This principle did not stop just with the recognition of the deity as a juristic person. It reasoned that a deity would not be able to act on its own and hence needed a guardian. Consequently, a Hindu deity was deemed in law as a perpetual minor with a manager appointed to act on its behalf. These managers could sue on behalf of the deity as their friend. A deity cannot be seized of any title or rights of property in violation of the law.
- Thus, Ram Lalla’s first friend was a retired Allahabad High Court judge, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, who moved the Allahabad High Court for the deity in 1989. When Mr. Agarwal passed away in 2002, the mantle of the Friend went to TP Verma. The SC appointed Trilok Nath Pandey Friend in 2010.
Ayodhya Act 1993?
In March of 1993, Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act was passed by the Parliament of India to acquire 67.7 acres in and around the disputed site. The Act prescribed for maintenance of the status quo that prevailed just before the acquisition. It meant that the make-shift temple was to remain and the pooja was to be continued.
Dr. Ismail Faruqui had challenged the validity of this act, saying governments have no right to acquire the disputed site. In 1994, a three-Judge bench of the Supreme Court held the state could acquire land on which a mosque is situated. It also established that a mosque is not an ‘essential part of the practice of Islam’ and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open.
The SC concluded that acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India.”
The Faruqui case was in the context of land acquisition and not for deciding ownership of titles. So, are not relevant in the Ayodhya case.
Other Details:
What is Article 142?
The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe.
- Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the top court bench -directed that the Central Government or Uttar Pradesh government should allot land measuring 5 acres to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for construction of the mosque within Ayodhya.
- Nirmohi Akahara may get representation in trust.
Why Babur destroyed Ram’s Temples?
The Babri Mosque built after the demolition of Ram Janmabhoomi Temple, clearly indicate that Hindus are being asked to live with the feeling of humiliation that Babur wanted to force on them as “conquered people”.
Babur’s commander-in-chief Mir Baki demolished the Ram Temple in 1528. The cunning thought behind demolition was to prove that Babur is the new ruler and is here to take ownership of the country.
Lord Ram is an integral part of India’s culture, so the destruction of his temple would send a cruel message to the Indians. If Hindu are unable to defend Lord Ram’s temple at his birthplace then they could be easily crushed and ruled over. For Hindus, the Ram Janmabhoomi site is not an issue of mere bricks and mortar.
Till 1934 Hindus fought a total of 76 battles to regain control of the Ram Janmabhoomi site. After India’s independence, this fight shifted to the courtrooms.
Other Stories | Why Should We Build a Ram Mandir
