CASE TITLE

M. SIDDIQ (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES  

                                                 … Appellants

V.

MAHANT SURESH DAS AND OTHERS                                                      … Respondents

CITATION: (2020) 1 Supreme court Cases 1: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1440.

BENCH: RANJAN GOGOI, C.J. AND S.A. BOBDE,  DR D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ASHOK BHUSHAN AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Ayodhya conflict is a long-standing dispute between Hindus and Muslims over a site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India. According to Hindu belief, the site is the birthplace of their God, Lord Ram. In the early 16th century, a fortress called Babri Masjid was built on the site by Mir Baqi, a general of the Mughal Emperor Babur. The Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992 by Hindu activists who claimed that the mosque was built on the ruins of a temple dedicated to Ram.

The dispute over the site began in 1850 when Hindus attacked the nearby Hanuman Garhi Mosque. The Hindu community has been demanding the return of the land on which the Babri Masjid was built and the construction of a temple on it. In 1949, an offshoot of the Hindu Mahasabha, the Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha, began a nine-day recitation of the Ramcharitmanas, which led to the placement of idols of Ram and Sita inside the mosque. Despite the order of Jawaharlal Nehru, the idols were not removed by the local administrator, K.K.K. Nair, who was sympathetic to Hindu nationalism. The conflict escalated, and the police sealed the doors of the mosque, preventing both Hindus and Muslims from entering. Priests were later given permission to enter the mosque for daily prayer, effectively turning it into a de facto temple.

The legal conflict over the ownership of the site began in 1950 when Gopal Singh Visharad was denied entry to Ayodhya, triggering a lawsuit. The case was heard in court for more than a decade before Nirmohi Akhara filed a new complaint in 1959 claiming ownership of the land. In the same year, the petition was granted to Nirmohi Akhara, claiming to be the guardians of the disputed region. In 1961, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf filed a lawsuit against the government, claiming ownership of the land. The legal battle continued for several years, with both sides raising the issue in various courts across the country.

The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 led to religious rioting throughout India, resulting in the deaths of at least 2,004 people, according to government figures. The Sunni Waqf Board and the All India Muslim Personal Law Board filed a case in a local court to assert their rights to religious property, leading to the formation of the Council for the Protection and Preservation of Muslim Religious and Cultural Sites in compliance with Indian law.

ISSUES

The main focus of this case pertained to the ownership of land that was historically recognised as the birthplace of lord Rama, as well as the historical background of the Babri mosque. One of the key points of contention in this matter was whether a pre-existing Hindu temple was destroyed or altered in order to construct the mosque during Babur’s reign.

ARGUMENTS

APPELLANT

The Sunni waqf board argued that the Babri masjid was a mosque and had been their possession for centuries. They claimed that the demolition was illegal and that they had the right to the land. The board relied on historical and legal evidence to support their claim to the land. The board argued that the Babri masjid had been constructed in 1528 by the Mughal emperor Babur and that it had been used as a mosque by Muslims for over 350 years.

They claimed that the mosque was an important religious site for Muslims and that it had been recognised as such by various authorities, including the British colonial Government. The Sunni waqf board also claimed that they had not abandoned their possession of the mosque and that they had continued to perform prayers on the site until it was forcefully occupied by Hindu activists in 1949. They argued that the mosque had been illegally occupied by Hindus, and that their possession of the land was not legitimate.

RESPONDENT

The Hindu parties argued that the land was the birthplace of Lord Ram and that a temple had existed on the site before the construction of the Babri Masjid. They claimed that the mosque had been built by demolishing the temple and that the land belonged to them.

The Hindu parties relied on religious and archaeological evidence to support their claim to the land. They argued that the ASI (Archaeological survey of India) report had found evidence of a temple beneath the mosque, and that this proved their claim to the land. They relied on the report to support their argument that the Babri Masjid had been built on the site of a pre-existing temple dedicated to Lord Ram and that the disputed site was the holiest place for Hindus. They claimed that the temple had been destroyed by Muslim invaders and that the Babri Masjid had been constructed on the site to assert Muslim dominance over the Hindus.

The Hindu parties also claimed that they had been in possession of the land since the 19th century and that the Babri Masjid had been built on their land without their permission. They argued that the demolition of the mosque was a legitimate act of protest against the illegal occupation of their land.

JUDGMENT

In November 2019, a five-judge Supreme Court bench, led by J. Ranjan Gogoi, announced its decision on the Ayodhya title dispute. The court granted ownership of the entire disputed land in Ayodhya to God Ram Lalla based on tax records, while directing the government to provide the Waqf Sunni Council an additional 5 acres of land for the construction of a mosque. The verdict also ordered the Union government to establish a trust within three months to build the Ram Mandir on the disputed site of the Babri Masjid’s 1992 demolition.

The court dismissed Nirmohi Akhara’s claim to be the caretaker of all contested areas, but directed the center to consider giving them representation in the trust. The Supreme Court ruled that the structure beneath the Ayodhya site in question did not constitute an Islamic edifice, and while it endorsed the Hindu belief that Lord Rama was born in the disputed area, it was unable to determine whether a temple was razed to make way for the mosque. Additionally, the court declared that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was illegal and determined that the Waqf Central Sunni Council of Uttar Pradesh had not demonstrated its claim to the site in the outer courtyard in dispute.

ANALYSIS

The case of Ayodhya land dispute involved various legal proceedings that started in 1950 and continued until 1989. On September 30, 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the cntested land belonged to the Hindus, Muslims, and Nirmohi Akhara, with each party receiving one-third of the disputed territory. The case focused on the issue of land ownership, which was traditionally regarded as Lord Rama’s birthplace, and the history of the Babri Mosque. The question at the center of the dispute was whether Babur demolished or modified an existing Hindu temple to construct a mosque.

In August 2019, the five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, started daily hearings and concluded the arguments by October 16, 2019. The Supreme Court postponed the decision until November 9, 2019, and eventually granted ownership of the disputed 2.77-acre property in Ayodhya to the Ram Janmabhoomi Foundation in a majority verdict. The court instructed the Muslims to construct a mosque in a suitable and prominent location on a different piece of property in Ayodhya. Moreover, the court ordered the government to build a temple at Ayodhya within three months.

After a 14-day hearing, the Supreme Court invited all parties to make written submissions for three days, explaining what they sincerely prayed for. Various parties made declarations regarding the disputed land, including the Nirmohi Akhara, Ram Lalla Virajman, PunarSudhar Samiti Ram Janambhoomi, Visharad Gopal Singh, Sunni Waqf Council, and Waqf Board of Shia Muslims. The Nirmohi Akhara sought the right to build a Ram Temple on the disputed site and manage Nirmohi Akhara’s grounds after the Temple is finished. Ram Lalla Virajman sought all of the disputed lands to be awarded to them, and PunarSudhar Samiti Ram Janambhoomi allowed only a Ram temple to be constructed on the disputed site. Gopal Singh Visharad demanded that no compromise be reached in the Ram Janmabhoomi conflict, while the Sunni Waqf Council urged a return to the original design of the Babri Masjid. The Waqf Board of Shia Muslims claimed that the disputed land legally belonged to them, and the land given by the High Court to the Sunni Waqf Council should now be granted to the Hindu parties. Finally, the Supreme Court is expected to establish a trust to oversee the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya and appoint a trustee to administer this trust.

CONCLUSION

The Ayodhya case is a significant event in Indian judicial history, spanning across several prime ministerships, including Narendra Modi’s. The Supreme Court attempted to resolve the matter in a harmonious manner, striking a balance between the two religions involved. The verdict granted God Ram Lalla ownership of the entire disputed land, while also directing the central and Uttar Pradesh governments to provide 5 acres of alternative land to the Muslim community for a mosque in a prominent location. It is important to note that politicians often use the “divide and rule” strategy to distract citizens from pressing issues such as poverty, unemployment, and agriculture. Therefore, it is crucial to focus on these core issues that contribute to a nation’s progress and not succumb to the politicians’ religious impulses.

Written by Aditya Gupta, B.A.LL.B. 2nd semester, Lloyd Law college

Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are the author’s and they do not reflect the opinions of Lawchakra.

Sanya Arora

Yet another Lawyer who happens to indulge in the gratification of reading and writing the Language of Law.

Yet another Lawyer who is trying to be better than yesterday.