Author: Gauri Singh, Lloyd Law College
To the Point
The Ram Mandir case, also known as the Ayodhya disagreement case, is a notorious legal story in India because of its complex admixture of nonfictional, theological, social, religious and legal rudiments. It focuses on the most notorious point in Ayodhya, where the Babri Masjid stood until it was demolished in 1992, lighting a contentious religious and legal disagreement. The foundation for a comprehensive examination of the legal process that led to the Supreme Court’s major ruling on November 9, 2019, which changed the nation’s sociopolitical geography Andre-examined several angles of justice and collaborative harmony, is laid out in this preface. The Ram Mandir case reached its climax on November 9, 2019, when the Supreme Court took the step into the matter. In order to balance different shoes, the court precisely considered legal, social, archaeological, and nonfictional considerations before making the decision. The legal process examined literal records, archaeological findings, and religious beliefs to ascertain who should have legal power of the disputed property. An important part was played by the Archaeological Survey of India , which carried out excavations at the position. The assertion that it might be the remnants of a Hindu temple was supported by substantiation of an earlier structure with Hindu architectural rudiments in the ASI assessment. In its decision, the five- judge Supreme Court panel recognised the point’s archaeological and nonfictional significance. The court ruled in favour of constructing a Hindu temple while considering the views of the Muslim community.
Use Of Legal Jargons
The Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in the Ayodhya property dispute case, officially known as M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, which covered a broad spectrum of legal terms and concepts. Although many of the terms were used in the broader Ayodhya debate, some were specifically highlighted or used in the Supreme Court’s thorough reasoning.
Title Suit/Declaratory Decree: The case was essentially a title suit in which the parties asked the court for a “declaratory decree” to prove their legal possession (title) of the contested land. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in Ram Lalla Viraj man’s favour.
De facto possession is the actual occupation or physical control of the property.
De jure possession: Legal possession that is frequently supported by a title. To ascertain who had sole or joint possession of various areas of the site over c Adverse Possession: According to this legal theory, someone can get land title by open, hostile, continuous, and notorious possession against the rightful owner for a set amount of time—typically 12 years in India. Although different parties brought up allegations of adverse possession, the Supreme Court ultimately rejected these arguments as the foundation for its ruling, stating that an act of trespassing or sacrilege cannot be justified by adverse possession.
Shebait/Shebaiti Rights: The Nirmohi Akhara’s claim, which emphasised their position as managers and guardians of the temple and deity’s property, was primarily founded on shebaiti rights. The court looked at their ability to demonstrate their ongoing shebaitship.
Res Judicata: This principle prohibits the same parties from reopening a case that has already been resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court looked at whether any earlier rulings on the Ayodhya dispute—like the lawsuit Mahant Raghubir Das brought in 1885—acted as res judicata.
The Proof
Ancient History: Lord Ram, the most worshipped character in the Hindu epic Ramayana, was born at Ayodhya, which is in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh. The Ram Janmabhoomi, a piece of land dedicated to Lord Ram, is said to have stood there for centuries.
In 1528, Mir Baqi, a general who worked under Babur the Mughal emperor built a synagogue on the same land during the 16th century, when India was ruled by the Mughals. The synagogue was named as Babri Masjid,
The Ayodhya dispute got more tensed after the country got independence in 1947. Following the covert placement of Lord Ram symbols inside, the synagogue was inspected by the authorities in 1949. This incident raised legal conflicts between Hindu and Muslim community due to land concerns.
The legal conflict got more intense due to authorities point Numerous court cases were filed by Muslim and Hindu organisations, each of which stated their exclusive rights. The main legal question that aroused was either the synagogue was built in an earlier Hindu property.
On December 6, 1992, a Hindu nationalist mob destroyed the Babri Masjid, alleging it was built on Lord Ram’s motherland, giving rise to more tensions. The destruction caused both loss of life and property escalating more tensions among both religious communities.
On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court of India rendered its decision following a period of deliberation and legal proceedings. Adding the decision to the government to give a proximate land to Sunni Waqf Board in order to build the synagogue on that land and favoured the Hindu community for building the Temple on the disputed land.
Abstract
The case involves a highly controversial judgement over a 2.77-acre plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. According to Hindu parties, the Ram Janmabhoomi was a temple that stood on the site before the Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528. The Muslim parties, primarily represented by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, maintained that the mosque was built on undeveloped land and that they had been using it for prayer ever since, until 1949, when idols were illegally erected inside. During the court war, various Hindu and Muslim organisations and individuals filed numerous title cases demanding ownership and possession of the contested land. 2010
The archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report was among the many pieces of oral, written, and archaeological evidence that the Supreme Court carefully examined and considered differed appeals made by the groups. There was a sizable, non-Islamic building underneath the destroyed Babri Mosque, according to the ASI assessment. According to the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on November 9, 2019, the Hindu parties had a stronger claim to the disputed land because of ongoing worship and the belief that it was the birthplace of Lord Rama, even though the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid was a heinous act and a violation of the law. Ram Lalla Virajman was acknowledged as a legal entity to hold this title.
Case Laws
1.Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas & Ors. v. Muhammad Hashim, 2010 (10) ADJ 1 (DB)
The case involved Muslim parties that argued for the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas was created with the malicious intention to destroy the superior title held by Nirmohi Akhara. They questioned the divine personality of Lord Ram and argued that his birthplace cannot be converted into a judicial personality. The Supreme Court pronounced in favour of Hindu community that stated land belonged to Ram Lalla Virajman.
2.Union of India and Others v. Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui et al., 1994, 6 SCC 360
The landmark decision revolves around the possession of certain land areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993, which was enacted by Parliament to buy the disputed land and its surroundings after the Babri Masjid was destroyed. The Supreme Court largely upheld the constitutionality of this Act. Crucially, the Court stated in this decision that “a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam, and namaz can be offered anywhere, even in public.” This observation, which later became a point of contention, was clarified and distinguished by the 2019 Ayodhya ruling. In 1994 ruling Muslims were not excluded stating that mosque was not to be built amidst the prevention of further construction of mosque.
FAQ’S
1. What was the nature of the land dispute in Ayodhya?
The conflict revolved around a 2.77-acre plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, that was claimed by both Muslims and Hindus. Hindus believed that a temple had once stood there and that it was the Ram Janmabhoomi, or the birthplace of Lord Rama, until the Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528. Muslims maintained that the mosque was built on undeveloped land and had been a place of worship until 1949.
2. What was the Supreme Court’s decision?
On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Hindu parties, holding that the disputed land was legally owned by Ram Lalla Virajman, who was represented by the Hindu parties. The court based its decision on historical, theological, and archaeological evidence.
3. What was the outcome of the mediation process?
A three-person mediation team led by Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla was formed by the Supreme Court in March 2019 to mediate the dispute. However, after the mediation process failed, the court set a daily hearing for August 6, 2019.
4. How did the parties end up?
The Supreme Court’s decision allowed for the construction of a Ram temple on the disputed land. In order for the Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque, the court also mandated that the government give them another 5-acre plot of land.
Conclusion
In Indian legal history, the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ayodhya dispute case represents a sea change. By granting the contested site for the construction of a Hindu temple and providing alternative property for a mosque, the ruling sought to uphold the rule of law while carefully balancing divergent religious viewpoints. This landmark decision aimed to promote national unity, intercommunal harmony, and reconciliation by resolving decades of hostility and conflict surrounding the issue. The Ayodhya dispute case’s resolution established the importance of tolerance, respect, and coexistence among India’s diverse religious communities, paving the way for healing the wounds of the past and fostering an inclusive and peaceful future. As the formal phase of the dispute draws to a close, the spirit
