Author – Haripriya Rajendra Tiwari, Adv. Balasaheb Apte college of law, Mumbai University.
Headline of the article
“Temple Gets the Land, Mosque Gets the Law: A Landmark Verdict in Ayodhya”
To the point
The Ayodhya dispute dates back to its origins to 1528 when the Babri Masjid was built under the direction of Mughal emperor Babur. Local people believed that it was constructed after demolishing a temple believed to mark the birthplace of Lord Ram. Over the centuries, both Hindu and Muslim communities laid claims to the site, leading to several recorded disputes. By the 18th century, the site was already a matter of religious significance, and by the mid-19th century, British colonial authorities officially demarcated separate areas for Hindu and Muslim worship. The placement of idols inside the mosque in 1949 escalated the situation, prompting legal suits and the eventual locking of the premises by the government.
The late 20th century saw a surge in political and religious mobilization. In the 1980s, Hindu groups launched a nationwide campaign to construct a Ram temple at the disputed site. In 1992, after years of increasing tensions and political backing, the Babri Masjid was demolished by a large group of Karsevaks. This led to widespread communal violence across India and prompted the formation of the Liberhan Commission to investigate the demolition. In the following years, multiple court rulings, surveys, and political actions kept the dispute alive in public and legal discourse.
In 2010, the Allahabad High Court delivered a landmark judgment dividing the disputed land into three parts among Hindu and Muslim parties, but this was stayed by the Supreme Court the following year. After years of hearings and deliberations, the Supreme Court delivered its final verdict on 9 November 2019, awarding the entire land for the construction of a Ram temple and allocating separate land for a mosque elsewhere in Ayodhya. The judgment was accepted by most stakeholders, and a government-backed trust was formed to oversee the construction of the temple.
On 22 January 2024, the Ram Mandir was formally inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, marking the culmination of a centuries-old conflict. In his speech, he described Lord Ram as a symbol of national identity, law, and cultural pride. The event not only closed a significant chapter in India’s religious and political history but also raised ongoing questions about secularism, historical memory, and communal harmony in the country.
Use of legal jargon
1. Title claims- Legal ownership or right over land/property.
2. Civil right to worship -Legal right to practice one’s religion, often protected under constitutional or statutory law.
3. Declaratory relief- A court order declaring the rights of parties without awarding damages or ordering specific action.
4. Injunctions- A judicial order stopping a party from doing something (e.g., encroachment).
5. Public order crisis- A breakdown of law and order affecting society at large.
6. Constitution Bench- A bench of 5 or more judges of the Supreme Court deciding significant constitutional questions.
7. Original jurisdiction (Art. 131)- Power of the Supreme Court to hear a case first, rather than on appeal.
8. Civil appellate jurisdiction- The power to hear appeals from lower courts in civil matters.
9. Preponderance of probability- A standard of proof in civil cases, meaning more likely than not.
10. Principle of equity- A concept of fairness applied by courts when legal rules are insufficient.
11. Remedial compensation- Relief or restitution granted to a party wronged in law.
12. Restitution in equity- Returning or compensating for what is fairly owed to balance justice.
13. Balancing of constitutional rights- Ensuring fairness when rights of two or more groups (e.g., religious rights) clash.
14. Secularism under the Constitution- The principle that the State maintains neutrality toward all religions.
Proof
The ASI report annexed to the Ayodhya judgment presents findings from an extensive excavation at the disputed site. It identifies twelve distinct cultural layers, indicating continuous human settlement from the 2nd millennium BCE through the medieval period. Among the most significant discoveries were pillar bases, walls, and foundation structures beneath the Babri Masjid, suggestive of a large, non-Islamic religious structure predating the mosque. The presence of typical Hindu architectural features like a “pranala” (water outlet) supports this interpretation.
However, the ASI refrained from conclusively stating that a temple was demolished to build the mosque. Instead, it provided a historical sequence showing a large public structure existed beneath the mosque without attributing it to any specific deity. The report’s neutrality on temple demolition and religious dedication left it to the judiciary to interpret the implications. The Supreme Court later noted that while the structure was not Islamic, the evidence alone could not resolve the title dispute without corroborating legal and historical context.
Abstract
The Ram Mandir dispute, formally titled M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Mahant Suresh Das & Others (2019), stands as one of the most defining constitutional and religious judgments in India’s legal history. It centred on ownership of 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh—considered by many Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, and where the Babri Masjid once stood. The mosque, constructed in 1528 by Mughal commander Mir Baqi, became the focal point of long-standing religious tension that frequently erupted into communal unrest. This long, polarising conflict was ultimately addressed by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision delivered on 9 November 2019.
In its ruling, the apex court awarded the entire disputed site for the construction of a Ram temple, basing its decision on longstanding Hindu worship at the site and archaeological findings that pointed to the existence of a non-Islamic structure beneath the mosque. Simultaneously, the Court recognised the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid as a serious violation of the rule of law and mandated that five acres of alternative land be given to the Sunni Waqf Board for constructing a mosque elsewhere in Ayodhya. This verdict sought to provide a legal resolution to a centuries-old religious contention, balancing historical faith with modern principles of justice, secularism, and communal harmony.
Case laws
1. Church of God in India v. K.K.R. Majestic Colony Welfare Association (2000)
Citation: (2000) 7 SCC 282
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of religion does not extend to disturbing public peace, such as loud religious practices in residential areas. Though not a land dispute, it shares similarity with Ayodhya in the sense that individual or group religious rights cannot override constitutional values like public order, coexistence, and legal due process. This case reinforced the judiciary’s stance that religious freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions.
2. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Citation: (1994) 3 SCC 1
While not a direct land dispute, this constitutional bench judgment is critical in understanding secularism in India. The case arose after several state governments were dismissed following the Babri Masjid demolition. The Supreme Court emphasised that secularism is a basic structure of the Constitution, and the state must remain neutral in religious matters. It stated that any political use of religion for electoral gain or state policy violates constitutional morality. The verdict had a lasting impact on the state’s role in religious disputes like Ayodhya.
Rationale Behind the Judgment
The Supreme Court of India, in resolving the long-standing Ayodhya dispute, addressed the conflicting religious claims over a site revered by both Hindus and Muslims. The Sunni Central Waqf Board represented Muslim interests, while the Hindu side was led by the deity Ram Lalla Virajman, who was granted legal personality. The court’s reasoning primarily rested on an analysis of historical occupancy and patterns of worship. It was determined that Hindus had demonstrated consistent, uninterrupted possession of the outer courtyard of the disputed land from at least 1857, whereas the inner courtyard remained a contested zone without exclusive control or clear evidence of worship by the Muslim community from the construction of the Babri Masjid in 1528 until the British-constructed wall in 1857.
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the unlawful demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and, in light of this, directed that five acres of land be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a new mosque. The judgment highlighted that political mobilisation had played a significant role in exacerbating religious tensions, often manipulating public sentiment to consolidate electoral gains.
Importantly, the Court conferred legal personality upon the deity Ram Lalla, considering the idol to represent the collective religious sentiments of Hindu devotees. However, it clarified that this recognition of legal personality does not extend to inanimate immovable property such as the land itself. The Nirmohi Akhara’s claim for management rights over the disputed site was not accepted independently, but it was given representation in the trust ordered by the Court to oversee the construction of a temple and manage the site henceforth.
Ultimately, the Court awarded the disputed 2.77 acres to Ram Lalla, citing superior evidence of Hindu worship and presence. The balance between historical continuity, legal recognition, and restitution for wrongful demolition formed the crux of the Court’s unanimous judgment.
Conclusion
The Ayodhya litigation stands out not only as one of the most complex and sensitive property disputes in Indian legal history but also as one that spanned the entire post-independence era, implicating nearly every Indian Prime Minister from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on 9 November 2019, aiming to resolve the conflict in a balanced and constitutionally justifiable manner that paid respect to the faiths of both communities.
By allocating the disputed site to the Hindu deity and directing the provision of alternative land to Muslims, the Court tried to ensure a reconciliatory outcome. The decision reaffirms the judiciary’s role as an arbiter not merely of legal property rights but also of deep-seated civilizational disputes that test the fabric of secularism and tolerance in India. It also serves as a precedent for encouraging legal solutions over violent confrontation in inter-faith disputes globally. However, the political appropriation of such religious issues, often driven by the strategy of ‘divide and rule,’ continues to challenge the idea of secular governance. The Ayodhya verdict, despite its legal clarity, leaves behind a legacy of lessons about co-existence, legal dignity, and the path to peace in pluralistic societies.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q1. Why was the Ayodhya dispute significant in Indian legal history?
The Ayodhya dispute was one of the longest and most complex civil suits in India, revolving around the religious claims of Hindus and Muslims over a piece of land considered sacred by both. It involved historical grievances, archaeological evidence, and legal questions around religious rights, possession, and secularism. The case spanned over 70 years and reflected deep communal sensitivities, making it a landmark in Indian constitutional and civil jurisprudence.
Q2. Who were the main parties involved in the case?
The key parties were the Sunni Central Waqf Board, representing the Muslim claim to the site as the location of the demolished Babri Masjid, and Ram Lalla Virajman, the deity representing Hindu interests. The Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect claiming managerial rights over the temple, was also involved.
Q3. Why did the Supreme Court give the land to the Hindu side?
The Court found stronger evidence of consistent Hindu worship and physical presence on the outer courtyard since at least 1857. The Muslim side, according to the Court, failed to prove exclusive possession or continuous worship between 1528 (when the Babri Masjid was built) and 1857. Hence, the balance of probabilities favoured the Hindu claim.
Q4. Was the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 justified by the Court?
No. The Court explicitly declared that the demolition of the Babri Masjid was illegal and a serious violation of the rule of law. As a form of restitution, the Court directed the government to allot 5 acres of land to Muslims for the construction of a new mosque at a prominent location in Ayodhya.
Q5. What is the legal status of a deity in Indian law?
Under Indian jurisprudence, a Hindu deity can be treated as a juristic person, meaning the deity can hold property and be a litigant in court. In this case, Ram Lalla Virajman was granted such legal personality and was awarded possession of the disputed land.
REFERENCES
M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v Mahant Suresh Das and Ors (2019) Civil Appeal No 10866-10867 of 2010 (Supreme Court of India).
Archaeological Survey of India Report (ASI), as referred to in the Ayodhya judgment: https://images.assettype.com/barandbench/import/2019/11/Ayodhya-Judgment-507-600-ASI-report.pdf.
Faizan Mustafa, ‘Ayodhya Verdict: A Judicial Balancing Act?’ (2019) The Indian Express https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/ayodhya-verdict-supreme-court-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-6121870/.
Suhrith Parthasarathy, ‘A flawed and troubling judgment’ (2019) The Hindu https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-flawed-and-troubling-judgment/article29937947.ece.
Ronojoy Sen, Articles of Faith: Religion, Secularism, and the Indian Supreme Court (Oxford University Press, 2010).
Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India
(1994) 6 SCC 360
🔗 Case text on SCC
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar
AIR 1954 SC 282
🔗 Landmark on religious freedom
K.K. Kochuni v. State of Madras and Kerala
AIR 1960 SC 1080
🔗 Trust and property case
📰 News & Commentary Sources:
The Hindu – “Ayodhya verdict: Full Supreme Court judgment” (9 Nov 2019)
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/full-text-of-supreme-court-judgement-on-ayodhya-case/article29941285.ece
Live Law – “Supreme Court delivers landmark verdict in Ayodhya dispute”
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-verdict-149313
Bar and Bench – “Explained: What the Ayodhya Judgment says”
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/explained-supreme-court-ayodhya-judgment
Scroll. in – “The Ayodhya judgment: Faith won, but what about law?”
https://scroll.in/article/943396/the-ayodhya-judgment-faith-won-but-what-about-law
PRS Legislative Research – For reference on Article 142 and constitutional powers
https://prsindia.org/
