Revisiting the Ram Mandir History and Ayodhya Judgment in 2024

19 January, 2024

Share on:

Introduction

On 22 January 2024, Ayodhya will witness the consecration ceremony of Ram Mandir. Four years ago, the foundation stone was laid by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The new Ram Mandir comprises Kaushalya Bhavan, Sita Rasoi, and Hanuman Griha. This Temple will be dedicated to the public after a long-fought legal battle.

History of Dispute

The Ayodhya Ram Mandir land dispute is a long-standing issue that revolves around the control and possession of a site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. As the name suggests, it is a dispute that centers around a plot of land known as the Ram Janmabhoomi, which Hindus believe to be the birthplace of a prominent deity in Hindu mythology, Lord Rama. The dispute is a historical, religious, social, and political debate in India. 

Pre-Independence

The origins of the dispute can be traced back to the 16th century when a mosque known as the ‘Babri Masjid’ was built in Ayodhya on the instructions of Mughal Emperor Babur by Mir Baqi, Commander of his forces, in 1528. According to Hindus, the mosque, Babri Masjid, was built by breaking the existing ancient temple that marked the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Mosque stood at the site for several centuries but its presence remained a source of contention between Hindus and Muslims. The first recorded communal dispute over the site occurred in 1853-1859 between Hindu priests and Musalmans of Ayodhya. During the riots, the British administration separated the areas of worship for Hindus and Muslims at the site with the help of a fence to control the situation. Further in 1885, a suit for declaration of ownership before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad was instituted by Mahant Raghubar Das, who sought permission to build a temple on the ‘Ramchabutra’ situated in the outer courtyard. The suit was dismissed noting that Mahant failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra. 

Post-Independence

Tensions surrounding the site escalated in 1949 after the idol of Lord Rama was placed inside the mosque. This led to a series of legal battles between the two communities because of which both sides moved to court and filed a civil suit. In this context, the state government locked the gates until further orders and declared the entire area as disputed. In the following year (1950), Gopal Simla Visharad and Paramahansa Ramachandra Das filed suit in the Faizabad district court for the right to worship the idols of Ram Lalla and for the continuation of worship as well as keeping the idols respectively. Further in 1959, Nirmohi Akhara instituted a suit claiming its absolute right to manage the affairs of the Janmasthan and the temple. On December 18, 1961, the Sunni Central Waqf Board and nine Muslim residents of Ayodhya filed a suit for possession of the site and the removal of idols. In 1986, the Faizabad district court ordered the removal of the lock on the disputed site allowing the Hindus to worship. After three years, in 1989, a suit was filed by a next friend on behalf of the deity ‘Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman’ and ‘Asthan Shri Ram Janmabhumi’ (birthplace of Lord Rama) for a declaration of title to the disputed premises. 

Despite the legal disputes, on September 25, 1990, Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) leader LK Advani launched the Rath Yatra from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya as a part of its support for the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation. These acts fueled religious tensions and led to a wave of violence across the country. In 1992, the dispute gained national and international attention when a large Hindu mob demolished the Babri Masjid (September 06, 1992). This sparked widespread violence and riots between the Hindus and Muslims leading to the loss of hundreds and thousands of lives. In response to this, the Liberhan Commission was established by the Indian Government on December 16, 1992, to investigate offenders and to assess the situation. In the following year, 1993, the ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ was passed for the acquisition of land by the Centre in the disputed area. As an aftermath of the destruction of the Babri Majid, various parties filed lawsuits claiming ownership of the disputed site. Further, the Supreme Court of India transferred the writ petitions that were pending before the High Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Article 139A. 

In the historic Ismail Faruqui vs. the Union of India case, the SC said that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The legal proceedings regarding the dispute continued for decades going through various courts. In 2002, the hearing of the suits related to the dispute began by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. On 30 September 2010, the Allahabad HC ruled a three-way division of the disputed area between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, and Ram Lalla with a 2:1 majority. The bench comprised of Justice S.U. Khan, Justice D.V. Sharma, and Justice Sudhir Agarwal. Further on May 09, 2011, the SC put a stay on the verdict of the Allahabad HC on the Ayodhya land dispute, and an out-of-court settlement among rival parties was suggested by Justice J.S. Khehar on March 21, 2017. In August 2017, the SC constituted a 3-judge bench to hear pleas against the 1994 verdict of the HC.  Further, on December 01, 2017, 32 civil rights activists file pleas challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC. The SC started to hear the civil appeals on February 08, 2018. After hearing the matter, the top Court reserved its verdict in July 2018. After five months, the SC set up a Constitution bench of five judges to hear the matter. 

During the court proceedings in 2019, the Supreme Court favored mediation and fixed March 05 for an order on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator. A three-member mediation committee was constituted including FMI Kalifulla, Shri Shri Ravishankar, and Advocate Sriram Panchu. The order was then reserved to determine whether the land dispute could be settled through mediation. On May 09, 2019, the three-member mediation committee submitted an interim report to the top court. Following this, a day-to-day hearing on the land dispute was commenced by the SC on August 06, 2019. After hearing the matter was 40 days, the SC bench reserved the judgment in October 2019. On November 09, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hindu side, paving the way for the construction of a Ram temple by a Trust at the disputed site. 

Supreme Court Judgment

The Supreme Court of India delivered a long-awaited judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute case on a court holiday on November 09, 2019 (second Saturday). The Constitution bench comprising of Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer delivered the judgment that is running in 1045 pages. The bench was headed by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The major key points of the judgment are in the following section of the article.

Key Points of the Supreme Court Judgment

Following are the important points from the Supreme Court judgment on Ayodhya land dispute case:

1. The Supreme Court issued directives to the Central government, instructing the establishment of a trust for the construction of a temple and allocating an alternative five acres of land for a mosque.
2. The Apex Court mandated Within a three-month timeframe, the formulation of a scheme by the Centre to create a board of trustees for the construction of a temple on the entire 2.77-acre disputed land.
3. The SC directed the allocation of suitable alternative land, measuring five acres, for the construction of a mosque, to be handed over to the Sunni Waqf Board.
4. The Supreme Court's passed directions to set up a Trust for the construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site virtually ousted the VHP-backed Ram Janmsthan Nyas from temple construction activities.
5. The SC, in its ruling, rejected the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment that had divided the disputed site into three parts. It also ruled against the maintainability of the Nirmohi Akhara suit, stating it had no shebait rights. However, the court had emphasized that the Nirmohi Akhara should be given appropriate representation in the Board of Trustees to be established.
6. The claim of the Shia Waqf Board against the Sunni Board for the Babri Masjid was dismissed.
7. The top Court emphasized that archaeological evidence should not be disregarded as mere conjecture and hypothesis. It upheld the perspective that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land but on a Hindu structure. Nevertheless, the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India did not definitively ascertain whether a Hindu temple had been demolished to construct the mosque.
8. The Supreme Court also noted that the demolition of the mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. The desecration of the mosque by placing idols in 1949 and its subsequent demolition were deemed contrary to the law.
9. The SC overturned the decision of the Allahabad HC that ruled a three-way division of the disputed area between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, and Ram Lalla.
10. The Supreme Court acknowledged the High Court findings that idols were placed inside the Babri Masjid dome on the night of 22-23 December 1949.

Conclusion

“It is true that the connection between a person and what they consider divine is deeply internal. It lies in the realm of a personal sphere in which no other person must intrude. It is for this reason that the Constitution protects the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion equally to all citizens.” These concluding words of the Constitution bench describe the dilemma the Court has to face while adjudicating on socio-religious issues. However, in the course of the 200-year-old issue, at every step, the jurists and the leaders tried various times to find a middle path. But in the end, only a judicial decision could appease the situation.