Amidst sacred ceremonies, mantra chants and gala festivities, the Ram Mandir shilanyas was finally soleminized in Ayodhya. Prime Minister Narender Modi sat in the pooja and performed the ground breaking ceremony.
The 1500 square yard plot of land, situated in the city of Ayodhya, had witnessed prolonged legal tussle for over more than 125 years. Religious groups, devotees and even gods contested for ownership of the sacred spot. From lower court to the highest court of the land the case wound its way up. In the process many Hindu and Muslim petitioners rallied along and the ensuing legal wrangle made the case increasingly complicated.
Successive courts pronounced divergent verdicts on the Ram JanamBhoomi-Babri Masjid case. Finally on 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court announced its verdict and awarded the disputed place to Hindus to build the Ram Janambhoomi Temple. Muslims were given a piece of land away from the site to build a mosque. The judgement led to an uneasy situation. Jubliation in one quarter, resignation in another.
At the centre of the row was the 16th-Century mosque , apparently built during the reign of Babar. The disputed site was revered by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Muslims held that they worshipped in the mosque for generations, and hence it rightfully belonged to them. They also held that there was no transfer of land ownership right.
ROOTS OF THE LEGAL TUSSLE
The roots of the legal battle can be traced back to 1958. Herein we find the first legal record of the case registered in Faizabad . On November 30, 1858, an FIR was filed against a group of Nihang Sikhs who had apparently installed their nishan and written “Ram” inside the Babri mosque. Police had recoreded that on December 1, 1858, a chabutra (platform) has been constructed by the Sikhs. This became the first documentary evidence that Hindus were present not only in the outer courtyard but also inside the inner courtyard.
The case initially had three main contending parties - two Hindu groups and the Muslim Waqf Board. The Hindu litigants were Hindu Mahasabha, Nirmohi Akhara.
In January 1885, Raghubar Das, the mahant of the Nirmohi Akhara, instituted a suit against the administration of Faizabad. The suit, sought to restrain the administration from interfering in the construction of a temple over a platform or chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid
For several decades the dispute was in limbo , till a group of Hindu activists illegally placed the idol of Ram in the disputed area in 1949.
An FIR was filed in the case and the gates were locked the same day.
Meanwhile, more parties joined the proceedings in the 1950s, including the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.
Time passed, in 1984, Vishva Hindu Parishad adopted a resolution demanding the `liberation' of the site of the Babri Masjid.
In January 2, 1986, Faizabad district judge passed an order to open the locks of the main gate of the Babri Masjid.
That was a turning point in Ayodhya dispute .After the locks
were opened, the Muslim leaders met in Lucknow and Babri Masjid Action Committee was formed to
spearhead fight for ownership of mosque.
DEITY BECOMES PARTY
How a diety became a legal party is also interesting.
After the ‘Ram Janmabhoomi’ movement, spearheaded by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad gathered momentum in the late 1980s, a fifth suit was filed by the ‘deity’ itself.
Both the deity and the birthplace are represented by a “friend” in the title suits. Since the 1980s, there have been three such “friends” or ‘’sakha’’ of Ram.
Two years later, in July 1989, Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court, filed a petition seeking to become the “sakha” or friend of the deity and its birthplace in the title suits.
The legal position is quite complicated. The deity is the owner of the land only in an ideal sense. The deity is considered a perpetual minor under the law, which is why it requires a friend to run the case on its behalf.
When the Allahabad High Court delivered its judgement in September 2010, it divided the disputed site three ways, with one-third going to the deity and Ram Janmasthan.
FROM ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TO SUPREME COURT
On July 12, 1989, the Allahabad High Court passed an order transferring all the suits to a three-judge bench of the high court.
On September 25, 1990, BJP leader L.K. Advani started a Rath Yatra across several States. This led to communal violence and bloodshed. Finally , the aggressive mobilisation resulted in the destruction of the masjid on December 6, 1992.
Thirteen years after the Allahabad High Court took the case in March 2002, hearing began for the title suit of the Ayodhya dispute. In July 2003, the Allahabad High Court ordered excavation at the disputed site. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) led excavation concluded that “recoveries were suggestive of a structure of Hindu religion origin”.
The ASI report though important was not the sole deciding factor in the judgement. The Supreme Court in its final judgement said “a finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI.Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial,”
Taking the story further, on September 30, 2010, the three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court gave its judgment in the title suit. It divided the disputed land into three parts, giving one each to Ram Lala, Nirmohi Akhada and Sunni Waqf Board. All the parties appealed in the Supreme Court against the Allahabad High Court judgment.
On 8 January, 2019, the apex court set up a five-judge bench to hear the title suit in Ayodhya.
Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi formed a constitution bench . The then CJI Gogoi headed the bench, other members were Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.
ADVERSE POSSESSION LOGIC
One question that the bench had to answer was whether the board had gained title to the Ayodhya land by adverse possession. The Muslim side argued that even if the mosque was built on temple ruins, as stated by the Hindu parties, they had adverse possession as the Babri Masjid had existed on the plot since the 16th century.
However, court rejected the claim and concurred with the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 ruling, which stated that there was no adverse possession as it was an open space where “anybody could have built anything” for prayers.
n The court assessed the disputed site from the perspective of the outer courtyard, where sites related to Ram is situated, and the inner courtyard, where the Babri Masjid stood.
n In its verdict, the bench noted that the evidence of Muslim side did not establish that the entire plot was used by Muslims for worship purposes.
n The court cited ASI report that states that the structure underneath was “not an Islamic structure”, and the artefacts excavated from the site suggested the presence of a Hindu structure.
n One of the primary characteristics of a mosque is that it hosts prayers. the court noted that the Muslim side had presented “no account” to show possession, “use or offer of namaz in the mosque between the date of construction and 1856-7”.
ARGUMENTS BY CONTENDING PARTIES
Supreme Court Bench
was often witness to emotionally charged
argument between Hindu and Muslim parties' counsel.
Sharp words were
exchanged and the bench had to often intervene to bring discipline in court
room.
From ancient
religious texts to ASI reports , piles of documentary evidence were used to bolster the rival claims to the disputed site.
The Hindu parties
strategy was to establish two vital points
before the Supreme Court to claim possession on the disputed land.
The first being Ram
Janmabhoomi -- the land below the central dome of the disputed structure as the
birthplace of Lord Ram as a juristic entity, which is subject to law.
Second, the
credibility accorded to the ASI report by the Allahabad High Court in its
judgement in 2010 to support their arguments.
Hindu parties thus backed their arguments from the High
Court judgement, and raised points related to faith and divinity from a legal
perspective before the Supreme Court.
The deity, or Ram
Lalla, was represented by veteran lawyers K Parasaran and CS Vaidyanathan.
K Parasaran made
submissions on treating land as a juristic entity, which is subject to law.
“Everything belongs to the deity,” Parasaran declared in the Supreme Court.
The Akhara’s case
rested on adverse possession.
Parasaran and
Vaidyanathan used historical records and
ASI report to argue that there had been
a temple under the mosque since the second century.
Muslims contested
this argument and claimed that the place under the central dome of the Babri
Masjid was not the birthplace of Lord Ram
Muslims contented
that report by ASI concluding that there was a temple at the site is
inconclusive and riddled with inconsistencies.
Travelogues by
Western gazetteers made over years are mere stories.
Possession of Ram
Chabutra and Sita Rasoi by the Hindu site only gives them right to pray and not
possession, said Muslim party lawyers.
Hindus have only
exercised prescriptive right (by offering prayers), but never the title. The
Muslim side has not lost the title, they contended.
Represented by
Rajeev Dhawan, the Sunni Waqf Board and
the other Muslim parties, argued that the entire disputed land belonged to them
as per the law, judgement of courts and records recognised by the British-era
administration. They stated that they had possession of the area since 1528
when the mosque was built and the land was never claimed by Hindus till 1989.
“If they had
possession, why was one dome of the Babri Masjid knocked down in the 1934 riots
and trespassers installed the idols in 1949 if they already had the title,”
senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan asked.
The Muslim side
said they have only sought title over the disputed area and not the land
acquired by the government, and that it would allow Hindus to worship in the
outer courtyard.
MEDIATION EFFORTS UNSUCCESSFUL
On March 8, 2019 Supreme
Court refered the Ayodhya dispute for mediation. The mediators were former Supreme Court judge FMI
Kalifulla, religious leader Sri Sri Ravishankar, and senior advocate Sriram
Panchu.
On August 2, 2019 the mediation panel admited failure in
resolving differences between the contending parties.
The court then decided to
conduct daily hearings from August 6..
High drama was witnessed on
the last day of hearing when senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Sunni
Waqf Board, tore papers and maps handed over to him by the counsel of All India
Hindu Mahasabha in the Supreme Court. On October 16, 2019 after 40-day marathon hearing the Supreme Court
reserved Ayodhya verdict .
MOULDING OF RELIEF
On October 19, both sides jointly submitted their note of ‘moulding of relief’ to the Supreme Court. The note addressed alternate relief that the Supreme Court may provide in case the title or ownership is not given.
The Muslim side said in the note that since the judgment would have “far-reaching implications it is for the court to consider the consequences of its historic judgment by moulding the relief in a fashion that will reflect the constitutional values that this great nation espouses".
Akhil Bharatiya Sriram Janam Bhoomi Punruddhar Samiti, in its moulding-the-relief statement suggested a decree in favour of Ram Lalla after taking into consideration the mediation report.
THE HISTORIC JUDGEMENT BROKE TRADITION
The unanimous Ayodhya judgment, broke three long held traditions of the Supreme Court: the verdict always bears the name of the author, author reads it in open court and the main judgment isn’t accompanied by an “addenda”.
Though CJI Ranjan Gogoi read out the judgment, it did not carry the author’s name. Same was for the addenda. However the judgment’s printed version bore the unmistakable imprint of Justice D Y Chandrachud. This surmise was based on styles and use distinct fonts peculiar to Justice Chandrachud.
ROLE PLAYING BY JUDGES
The five judges of the bench played distinct roles during the hearing of Ayodhya dispute.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi gave free-hand to counsels to argue their case and setup a time frame wherein counsels of various parties were assigned time limits to complete their arguments
Justice S.A. Bobde asked probing questions on the belief and faith as related to both parties. He handled high pitched arguments with a stoic calmness .
Justice D.Y. Chandrachud assessed the faith aspect from a legal perspective, and often tested both parties arguments on the touchstone of jurisprudence. He asked the most questions. He plainly told the Muslim parties that the ASI report has been prepared by "studied minds, and can’t be summarily dismissed.
Justice Ashok Bhushan seemed well versed with the High Court judgement, and asked pointed queries. He meticulously tracked the cross-examination of the witnesses.
Justice S.A. Nazeer patiently heard the counsels in the case. He reprimanded the Muslim parties'' counsel on their comments on ASI report.
UNDERPINNINGS OF THE JUDGEMENT
The 1,045 pages judgement was a legal treatise of sorts. It held that there was a non – Islamic structure underlying the Babri Masjid. Babri Masjid demolition a violation of the rule of law, and this wrong must be remedied. Title to the land should be decided based on settled legal principles, and not on faith or ASI findings.
Muslims have no evidence to show possessory title. There is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by Hindus prior to 1857, no such evidence is in favour of Muslims.
That is, the Hindu litigants were able to establish their case that they were in possession of the outer courtyard. It added that the Muslim side was unable to prove their exclusive possession of the inner courtyard
The disputed site spreads over 1500 sq yards. Dividing the land will not secure a lasting peace. Trifurcation of the disputed land by the High Court was legally unsustainable.
The mere presence of pujaris does not vest in them any right to be shebaits ( thus nullifying Akhara’s claim)
Supreme Court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied..
After establishing the underpinnings of the judgement thus the Bench proceeded to deliver its judgement.
THE AYODHYA VERDICT
The Supreme Court Bench upheld the title rights of Ram Lalla Virajman over the disputed property, ordering the Centre to develop a trust to oversee the construction of a Ram temple within three months from its ruling.
The court held that the Nirmohi Akhara is not a shebait(manager of the temple) or devotee of the deity Ram Lalla and the Akhara's suit was barred by limitation.
The court ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acres of land in another place to the Sunni Waqf Board for building of a mosque.
CONCLUSION
The Ayodhya verdict broke new grounds in Indian jurisprudence.
After more than a century of legal tussle the Supreme Court cleared the nebulous fog over the Ayodhya dispute by its verdict.
The courtroom fight which led to the verdict was fierce and dramatic. No quarter was given without forceful legal combat.
The arguments were intense, emotional and loaded with reference from diverse sources. History, spirituality, faith, Hinduism, Islam, Sharia, law and constitution were invoked by contesting parties to put across their point .
The Ayodhya issue was legally complicated. Probably for the the first time Faith was pitted against Law. Historical facts contended with mythological beliefs. It was a fight between religious convictions and rationality.
Though the Apex court initially approached the matter as a land dispute as time went on its social underpinnings were realized and ultimately to do complete justice the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Indian Constitution.
All said, the decision proves to be a milestone for Indian jurisprudence law. It gave primacy to ‘’wisdom over cold legal logic’’ ( Justice Venkatachaliah ) . The verdict embraced an Utilitarian philosophy which proclaims “the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” as the summon bonum of social existence.
+++++++++++++++++
_________________
