Introduction
India is a very unique country which known by its diversity. In India, people have a very belief for their religion and religion ceremonies. Which is very good but at the same time bad also.
The Politician take advantage of religious contements of the people for the elections. Just like Britishers "Divide And Rule" agenda for fulfilling the people and manipulate them their religious beliefs, we also heard about the religious violence.
In Indian Constitution, in order to preserve, protect, and maintain the culture and traditions of all religious we have adopted "secularism".
Various people have Various mindset and different beliefs of people which lead to harm the society in form of violence and disturbance. Some dispute are very continuing for long time.
On such dispute arise in the case M. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Vs Mahant Suresh Drs and Ors, popularly known as Ayodhya Dispute Case. Now we will try to analyze the Background history, issue raised and Verdict in this case.
1. M. Siddiq (D)Thr Lrs Vs Mahant Suresh Das and Ors:[1]
This case is popularly known as Ayodhya Dispute Case. The Dispute is a social, religious, historical, political debate in India, which was centered on the land of Ayodhya in Uttarakhand. The case continues for long time and finally Supreme Court passed a Verdict on date November 9 2019.
2. Facts of the cases
The History of Ayodhya city which contradict on both Hindu (who claim birth place of Lord Ram) and Muslims (who see it as city which locate Babri Masjid which was built by 1st Mughal Emperor Babur has 1528).
First religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in 1850 nearby Mosque was attacked by Hindu in Hanuman Gadhi, also they attack on Babri Masjid.
Hindu always demands for the possession of the land, where the Babri Masjid established and allow them to built a temple there. They believed that the Mughal Emperor Babur has demolished the Hindu Temples and their deties and they have made Mosque there. But unfortunately, their demand was refuse by Colonial Government.
On 22 December 1949, the Hindu Mahasabha called Akhil Bhartiya Ramayan Mahasabha (ABRM) organized a nine days recitation of Ramcharitmanas. At the end they broke the door of Mosque and they established idol of Shri Ram and Devi Sita inside. But, the Jawahar Lal Nehru ordered to remove the idol, but it was refused by locals officials KKK Nair(known for the Hindu Nationalist Connection), claim for communal riots.
After this, the police locked the door and ban the entry of both Hindu and Muslims only the priest were allowed to enter for the idol worship which was established inside and the Mosque converted into De-Facto temple. Both Sunni Waqf Board and AMRM filled a Civil Suit in court for claiming their religious rights on site.
The legal battle began in 1950 for Ayodhya, when a petition was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad. He was Ayodhya Secretary of Hindu Mahasabha an organization was formed to oppose the secular principles of the Congress Party.
The court dragged the case for almost a decade and in 1959 the Nirmohi Akhara filed another complaint for claiming that area. In response to above suits, the Sunni Central Waqf Council filed a request in 1961. The Council was established by Indian Law to protect and preserve Mughal Religious and Central Sites.
3. Issue raised
The Ayodhya land dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India that has been on for decades. The dispute is focused on a plot of land in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which is regarded among the Hindus to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Ram.
According to some beliefs, it was originally the site of a Hindu temple that was demolished to construct a mosque known as Babri Masjid. For their part, Muslims claim that the land was titled to them and Mir Baqi built the mosque on it in 1528 on orders of the first Mughal emperor, Babur.
The modification/demolition of the temple has stood as a topic of controversy. By some accounts, some Muslims in 1949 saw an idol of Ram being placed inside what was then a mosque. Both Hindu and Muslim sides claimed ownership of the site and that led to an eventual lockdown of the area by the government.
On December 17, 1959, Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit seeking possession of the site and claimed to be the custodians of the disputed land. Following this, the Sunni Central Board of Waqf also filed a suit claiming ownership of the site on December 18, 1961.
Later, some Hindu kar sevaks on December 6, 1992, demolished Babri masjid, an action that triggered communal riots all over India, killing at least 2,000 people.
Over the years, the matter has been brought up by both groups in various courts of the country.
On September 30, 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the disputed 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts among the Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara. The petitioners moved the Supreme Court and the apex court stayed the HC verdict.
In 2016, the court started a fresh hearing of the case. In 2017, the SC said that the matter was sensitive and suggested for the case to be settled out of court. It asked stakeholders to hold talks and find an amicable solution. However, no solution was achieved. In 2018, the Supreme Court set up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the land dispute case.
On November 9, 2019, a Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi unanimously ruled that the disputed land be given to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas for the construction of a temple, and the Muslim side be compensated with five acres of land at a prominent site in Ayodhya to build a mosque.
In February 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced in the Lok Sabha that the government had given its approval to the proposal for "Shri Ramjanmabhoomi Tirtha Kshetra" trust to take care of the construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya and other related issues.
4. Written Submission of Parties to the case:
After the long hearing of fourteen days. The Supreme Court has given three days to all the parties of the cases to give their written submission and made them clear of what they are actually praying. Following the different parties and their written statements of this case:
4.1. Nirmohi Akhara
4.1.(a) In the case the Verdict come in favor of Hindu Parties where the Akhara should retain the Rights to Serve the Diety.
4.1.(b) The permissions to built Ram Mandir on the disputed site and Nirmohi Akhara should be authorized to manage the land once the temple is built.
4.1.(c) If court decides to confirm the Verdict of High Court of Allahabad in 2010 and Muslims party declare that they will not do any construction on disputed site, the court ask the Muslims party to give share land to Hindu party. [The Verdict of High Court of Allahabad divided disputed land into three parts: The Sunni Waqf Council, The Nirmohi Akhara, and The Ram Lalla].
4.1.(d) The Court should order the government to provide land to Muslims side, so that they can built their Mosque outside the disputed site.
4.2. Ram Lalla Virajman
4.2.(a) The written submission on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman says that court give all the land to Ram Lalla.
4.2.(b) The statement says that no part of disputed land should given to either Nirmohi Akhara or Muslim Party.
4.3. Ram Janambhoomi Punar Sudhar Samiti
4.3.(a) Only Ram Temple allowed to built the disputed site in Ayodhya.
4.3.(b) Once temple built, a trust must be formed to manage it.
4.4. Gopal Singh Visharad
4.4.(a) Gopal Singh Visharad, whose ancestors are performing ritual in temple for centuries. They argued that this is their constitutional Rights to offer prayer to Ram Janambhoomi.
4.4.(b) His statement is that there should be no compromise in Ram Janambhoomi case.
4.5. Sunni Waqf Board
4.5.(a) The commission wishes to obtain some remedy that involved hearing. During hearing, Commission Council Rajeev Dhawan requested Babri Masjid regain form before being destroyed on December 6, 1992.
4.6. Hindu Mahasabha
4.6.(a) The Supreme Court expected a trust to oversee the management of Ram Mandir to be built on disputed site Ayodhya.
4.6.(b) The Supreme Court appointed an administrator to deal with the trust.
4.7. Shia Waqf Board
4.7.(a) Before High Court of Allahabad, they said that Muslims Party gave up on disputed land and hand over to Hindu Parties to built Ram Mandir.
4.7.(b) Written Submission of directors said that Ram Mandir should built on disputed land in Ayodhya.
4.7.(c) The Waqf Council is lawful owners of disputed land, not Waqf Council.
4.7.(d) The land is given to Sunni Waqf Council in High Court order should now given to the Hindu Party.
5. Judgment
The Bench of 5 Judges of Supreme Court hear the litigation case from August to October 2019.
On 9 November 2019, The Chief Justice Ranjan Gangoi, announce Verdict, he quashed the previous ruling and ruled that land belong to the government on the basis of tax records. He ordered the land to turn over trust for construction of Ram Mandir. He also ordered government to give 5acre land to Sunni Waqf Council to built the Mosque.
Following are the top ten points that were highlighted in Judgements of case:
5.1. The Supreme Court grant the 2.77acre of disputed land in Ayodhya to diety Ram Lalla.
5.2. The Supreme Court order the government of Central and Uttar Pradesh to locate 5acre land to Muslims.
5.3. The court ask center to giving some sort of representation to Nirmohi Akhara for setting trust. Nirmohi Akhara was the third party in Ayodhya Conflict.
5.4. The Supreme Court reject the Plea of Nirmohi Akhara, as his Plea is to control all the disputed land, claiming that it was its custodian.
5.5. The Supreme Court ordered the Union Government to create trust for three months to built the Ram Mandir on disputed land.
5.6. The Supreme Court said that the structure of disputed land in Ayodhya was not an Islamic Mosque Structure. But the Assistant Sub Inspector failed to prove that the temple was demolished to built the Mosque.
5.7. The court declared that Hindu regarded on disputed land as it was the birth place of Lord Ram, where as the Muslims also say the same thing on Babri Masjid.
5.8. The court declare that Hindu Belief on Lord Ram was born on that disputed land, where Babri Masjid was once cannot be challenged.
5.9. The Supreme Court also declare that the demolished on Babri Masjid was violation of Law.
6. Brief Timeline from the occurrence of the dispute to end of the dispute:
6.1. December 6, 1992: Babri Masjid was demolished by gathering of almost 200000 Hindus.
6.2. December 16, 1992: Ten days after demolition, the Congress Government at Center, led by P.V.Narsimha Rao, set a commission of inquiry under leadership of Judge Liberation.
6.3. August 6, 2019: The five Judge Constitutional Bench, which was head by Chief Justice Ranjan Gangoi of Supreme Court and began the final hearing of the cases.
6.4. October 16, 2019: The final hearing before Supreme Court end, the Bench reserve final judgment. The court gave parties to conflict three-day to file written notices on which the court must decide.
6.5. November 9, 2019: Final Judgments of Supreme Court order the Surrender of land to trust for the construction of Ram Mandir. It also order the government to donate 5acre land to built a Mosque.
6.6. December 12, 2019: All petition for review of the Verdict dismissed by Supreme Court. [2]
7. Conclusion:
The case is a very long running case in the history of Indian Judiciary and case has witnessed all the Prime Minister of India from Jawahar Lal Nehru to Shri Narendra Modi. Finally, the dispute was resolved on dated 9 November 2019.
In this Judgments, the Supreme Court approach the case in a harmonious way and try to balance between on both of the religious. The Supreme Court grant the 2.77acre disputed land in Ayodhya to Ram Lalla. Also Supreme Court order to give 5acre alternative land to Muslims to built a Mosque.
8. Citation
[1] Indian kanoon, India available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/107745042/ (last visited January 7, 2024)
[2] pleaders, India available at https://blog.ipleaders.in/ayodhya-dispute-case/ (last visited January 7, 2024)
