AYODHYA DISPUTE CASE
AUTHOR: MUSKAN PARASHAR, A STUDENT AT MODY UNIVERSITY
M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS. VS MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS
Date of Judgement : November 9, 2019
Case Number: 10866-10867 of 2010
Petitioner: M Siddiq (deceased)
Respondent: Mahant Suresh Das & Ors
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case has continuously captured the interest of the entire nation and has one of the earliest origins in the history of the Indian legal system. The case is around the competing religious views of the two largest sects in India about a plot for ownership in the ancient town of Ayodhya. Both the Muslim and Hindu communities claimed that the disputed region is the birthplace of Lord Ram and the site of the construction of the Babri Masjid by Mughal Emperor Babur. The litigation started in 1528, the same year that the Babri Masjid was built. The first communal rebellion was in the late 1850s. To enforce this, the colonial government built a wall separating the inner from the outer courtyard. In 1885, Mahant Das filed a civil lawsuit to have a temple built in the courtyard outside. But the court prohibited him from doing so, believing that it would upset the community’s peace and order. A long-lasting sectarian fire was ignited in 1949 when the Hindu community placed Lord Ram statues in the Central Dome. Following litigation from both groups, the Faizabad Civil Court issued an order to close off the disputed region in compliance with Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In 1986, however, the Hindu community was allowed to practice their faith in the area after the district court of the Faizabad Court opened the gates. This came to an end on December 6, 1992, when the Babri mosque was destroyed by the Karsewaks. The case was transferred to the Allahabad High Court in 1989 from the Faizabad Civil Court. The Sunni Board was assigned the remaining land by the High Court, while the inner courtyard, the Ram Chabutra, and the Sita Rasoi were allocated for the Lord, the Nirmohi Akhara. However, neither party was satisfied with the court’s decision, so they each filed an appeal and a request for special leave with the Supreme Court. The Hindu faith claims that the Ram Janam Bhoomi was constructed after the Mughals destroyed it during their invasion of India. On the other hand, the Muslims said that Babur’s general, Mir Qasim, followed Babur’s orders and built the mosque on an undeveloped plot of land. However, the Muslim community did not dispute the existence of Ram Janam Bhoomi. All they said was that the Hindu community had not made any proprietary claims. According to the Nirmohi Akhara, the Shebat is the party to the litigation. A Shebait is the person who manages the Deity’s business and serves as the Deity’s attendant. The Sunni Board’s main defense was that there had never been any gods in the area before the statues were built in 1949. They claimed that, right up until 1949, they regularly worshipped in the mosque. Since they had been using the contested property for a long time, they would gain more. However, the Hindu population said that after Babur entered their region, which is now known as India, he destroyed many temples, including the temple at Ayodhya. After establishing a constitutional system of legitimate administration and forcing the Hindu population to deal with the bloodshed of their invasion, it was only reasonable to make amends for past wrongs. They maintained that the title to the land still held, having been in force since the eleventh century. Evidence was presented, one of which was a 1928 copy of the Faizabad Gazette. This gazette acknowledged the destruction of the ancient Ram Janam Bhoomi sanctuary by the Mughal emperor Babur. The Kasauti Pillar and other ruins of the destroyed temple were used in the construction of the mosque. Devotees continued to pray to Lord Ram using a variety of symbols, including Sita Rasoi, even after it was destroyed. In order to speak for the Lord himself rather than his disciples, the legal action taken on the Deity’s behalf was essential. He would give their interests precedence over Lord Ram’s.
ISSUES RAISED
Did Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board, and the god himself bring cases in India under the country’s statute of limitations?
Is Ram Janma Bhoomi going to be recognised as a legal entity?
Would it be possible for the disputed area to include an ancient temple? If such were the case, would the Hindu community be eligible?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
No idols were discovered on the grounds of the mosque before their secret transportation within the Babri Masjid between December 22 and 23, 1949. The declaration disapproved of the concept of an Asthana or governing deity.
Both the Friday prayers and the regular prayers were held on the mosque’s grounds until December 16 and December 22, 1949, respectively.
The British government continued the Mughal rulers’ history of providing funding for the masjid’s upkeep and operations.
The Hindu temple of Janmasthan is at the centre of the conflict; it was located in the courtyard, while the Muslims performed their namaz inside the mosque’s walls.
The contested area has long been a mosque used for community prayer, making it a Waqf. Since namaz was said there from the mosque’s construction in 1528 until its defilement in December 1949, the disputed area has been used as a place of prayer.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Since the Indian Constitution was enacted, the Mughals’ crimes are now accountable, and they need to be made right. Babur’s invasion of India destroyed thousands of temples, including the one at this location. Since invaders ruled over India, Hindus were unable to exercise their rights.
The saints’ 12th-century legal name is still enforceable today because a god’s property is indisputable.
There has never been, and never could, a valid Waqf. It has been reported that Hindus kept the area under their control even after Muslims periodically invaded.
The Faizabad Gazetteer from 1928 states that a mosque was constructed using the Kasauti pillars and other ruins of the destroyed temple.
Suit number 5 was launched out of concern that the personal interests of the principal participants would be upheld in the current suits at the expense of Lord Rama’s deity, even though the god was not involved in the previous acts.
Mosques cannot be built on the foundations of former houses of worship according to Islamic law. The Babri Masjid cannot be regarded as a mosque as a result.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
The Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court’s decision to divide the land among the parties without establishing ownership was legally unsound. The Supreme Court ordered the central government to establish a trust to oversee the construction of a temple on the disputed site, noting that the government owned the land in question under the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the central government to provide the Sunni Waqf Board with a substitute five-acre tract for the construction of a mosque.
JUDGMENT
On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered a unanimous decision in the case of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. The court ruled in favor of the Hindu parties, awarding them the contested land in exchange for giving the Sunni Central Waqf Board a different piece of land on which to construct a mosque. The court ruled that the mosque was constructed on top of the remains of a temple and that the underlying structure beneath the now-demolished Babri Masjid was not Islamic in origin. The Muslim side had not demonstrated that it had continuous and exclusive control of the contested territory, the court further found. The Archaeological Survey of India’s study verified the existence of a temple at the site, the court declared, adding that the Hindu parties have demonstrated their right to worship at the contested location.
The court also held that the government’s acquisition of the land in 1993 was not illegal. The establishment of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra trust was authorized by the court to supervise the building of a temple at the site of contention. The Nirmohi Akhara was allowed to have one member in the trust, but that individual would not have voting rights. The trust was to consist of fifteen members.
An alternative 5-acre tract of land in Ayodhya was given to the Sunni Central Waqf Board so that they may build a mosque. The central government was ordered by the court to give the Board the required amount of land.
CONCLUSION
The case of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, decided by the Supreme Court, resolved the long-running disagreement on who owned the disputed land in Ayodhya. The decision, which had previously caused tensions and bloodshed between the communities, was universally praised for its impartiality and fairness in settling the conflict.
