RAM MANDIR & BABRI MASJID DISPUTE- THE DISPUTE OF DEITY OR LAND?

One of the longest-running confrontations or battles in the history of India has now settled andthe Supreme Court gave its verdict and allotted the so-called disputed land of 2.77 acres to Ram Janmabhoomi and gave an alternative land of 5 acres to Sunni Waqf Board. But even after the verdict delivered by the court, certain questions remained unaddressed.

The history of this case is about 500 years old that began in 1528. Now if we consider this land dispute, the question here is that from when it should be taken into consideration? Whether from 1528 when Babri Masjid was constructed or from 1949 when the idol of Ram was placed or from 1992 when Babri Masjid was finally demolished?

The article is an attempt to analyze the Allahabad High Court judgment and why it was not accepted. What the Archaeological Survey of India report stated? Why mediation failed in resolving the dispute? Whether it was actually a land dispute or was a religious dispute? Whether the title of land was involved or the question to whom the god belongs?

Let us acquaint with the second-longest case of the Supreme Court in the Indian History that lasts about 40 days and its decision as to why such a verdict was given? 

BRIEF OUTLOOK OF THE CASE DETAILS

CASE	M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
CIVIL APPEAL NO.	10866-10867 OF 2010
COURT	Supreme Court of India
JURISDICTION	Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
DECIDED ON	November 09, 2019
BENCH	CJI Ranjan Gogoi, DY Chandrachud, Sharad Arvind Bobde, S Abdul Nazeer, Ashok Bhushan

TIMELINE OF THE DISPUTE-

As I mentioned that the first recorded clash in the Indian history relating to Ayodhya Dispute dates back to 1858. Let us understand the events that occurred in chronological order-

YEAR	DESCRIPTION OF OCCURRENCE
1528	Babri Masjid was constructed as a tribute to Mughal emperor Babur
1885	The plea was filed in Faizabad District Court by Mahant Raghubir Das to get permission for constructing canopy outside the disputed structure. The plea was dismissed by the court
1949	The idol of deity Ram was placed outside the disputed structure.
1950	The suit was filed by Mahant Ram Chandra Das in Faizabad District Court to continue worshipping Ram idol
1959	The suit was filed by Nirmohi Akhara for the possession of disputed land
1961	The suit was filed by UP Sunni Waqf Board for possession of disputed land
1986	The Faizabad court-ordered to open a site for Hindu Worshippers
1989	Maintenance of status of disputed land was ordered by Allahabad HC
1992	Babri Masjid was finally demolished
1993	The center passed ‘Acquisition of certain area Ayodhya Act’ in the disputed site Many writ petitions were filed for the control and possession of disputed land thereby including Ismail Faruqui petition filed in Allahabad HC SC under Article 139A transferred the aforesaid petitions which were pending in HC
1994	SC declared that the mosque was not integral to Islam (Ismail Faruqui case)
2002	Finally, SC started hearing as to who owns the disputed site
2010	High Court (2:1 majority) ruled 3-way division of disputed land among Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla
2011	SC stays aforementioned verdict of HC
2017	Meditation was suggested among rival parties
2018	Supreme Court started hearing civil appeals and reserved the verdict. Later the court denied referring the case to 5 judge bench.
2019	SC heard the case by constituting 5 judge bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi and gave the verdict that 2.77 acres of land belongs to Ram Janmabhoomi and gave 5 acres of alternative land to Waqf Board.

ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT’S VERDICT-

Overview of Allahabad HC Judgment-

Now the report of Archeological Survey India provided that in the 12th century there was a Mandir in the particular disputed area and in 1528 in the same area Masjid was constructed and there is no evidence as to the time period of 300 years between the 12th century and 1528. The local people believed that the Masjid was constructed in place of Mandir.

The HC on the basis of all reports and evidence gave its historical judgment in 2010 thereby ruling 3-way division of the disputed land

• The Ram Murthi part was given to Ram Lalla Virajman

• The Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi Bhandara was given to Nirmohi Akhara

• The remaining part was given to Sunni Waqf Board

Overview of the Supreme Court’s Judgment-

About 32 appeals reached the Supreme court thereby challenging the decision of Allahabad HC as a result of which SC put a ban on the decision in 2011. In 2019, SC started hearing on the matter after mediation failed. About 40 days, this hearing was in the picture and gave its final verdict.

Contentions Raised by all three Parties

PARTIES	REPRESENTED BY	CONTENTIONS RAISED
Ram Lalla Virajman	CS Vaidyanathan	There always existed Ram Mandir in this area which was demolished and Babri Masjid was built. Since 1949 this area was under their control and Waqf Board did not have any exclusive possession over it. Also, the hind scriptures were found in the pillars of Masjid which shows that there was Ram Mandir before Masjid
Nirmohi Akhara	Sushil Kumar Jain	From 1934, the possession of inner courtyard should be given to them but no documents in this regard were presented
Sunni Waqf Board	Rajeev Dhavan	In 1992, the fact that Masjid was only there should be solely considered. Further, at midnight the idol of Ram was placed which was an illegal act. Also, Ram Chabutra is the actual birthplace of Ram and Hindu worships that place and if they continue worshipping that place, no objection will be raised to it. But the inner courtyard should be given to the Board

After hearing all the contention raised by the parties, the Supreme Court observed that on the basis of reports and contentions, the verdict cannot be given. Rather the decision should be in accordance with the legal principles and the evidence. The evidence, therefore, shows that even there was Masjid, there was no ban on Hindus worshipping Ram. Therefore, the court declared the judgment of Allahabad HC unsustainable as this was not the demanded relief by the parties and delivered its final verdict.

Criticism of Verdict of Supreme Court-

Even after the verdict has been given by the Supreme Court, several questions arose that opposed the judgment. The questions of whether the verdict is influenced by Majoritarianism? Whether the verdict paved a way to larger battles concerning religion and faith? Even Masjid remained in existence for a longer period, despite this it was demolished. Whether the verdict was anyhow related to the Limitation Act?

The notion that Babri Masjid was constructed after destroying Ram Mandir was not the finding of the ASI report and nobody is aware as to what happened in the 12th century and as a result of which the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was dismissed. The Supreme Court gave the complete possession to the Ram Lalla despite acknowledging the illegal act of placing Ram idol inside the Masjid.

 Further, Nirmohi Akhara who was the oldest litigant was barred by limitation Act and on the other hand, the first litigant in 1989 named Ram Lalla remained unaffected. This shows the inconsistency in the judgment of Court. The court invited the larger battle by doing so.

Now coming to religion and faith. Whether the verdict of the court in any manner was based on religion and faith and not on legal principles and pieces of evidence? Whether the verdict was sided with Majoritarianism?

It was argued that the Supreme court gave its verdict concerning the faith instead of law and reason. However, it should be noted that the Doctrine of essentiality made the court ponder upon whether religious practice is essential for fait or not. The court gave complete possession to Ram Lalla concerning the long, continued, and unrestricted worship at Ram Chabutra. Further, the court while dismissing the petitions of Nirmohi Akhara and Waqf Board stated that placing Ram idol in Masjid was an act of caution and that the verdict is given with respect to principles of title, evidence, and facts and not on basis of faith and religion.

In the name of equity and concerning Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, the court awarded Waqf Board 5 acres of land near the disputed site.

The question that whether the majority character was considered in giving the decision is into the picture because both the inner and outer courtyard was given to Hindus and Muslims were instructed to build Masjid somewhere else. However, that court did so because the court was to determine the nature of disputed land in the absence of any historical records with respect to the title of the land.

Therefore, the decision was not influenced by Majoritarianism and was in accordance with the law and reason and not based on belief and faith.

GURNEET KAUR