Page |1

CASE ANALYSIS ON M. SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS VERSUS MAHANT

SURESH DAS & ORS

AYODHYA TITLE DISPUTE

By

DEEPALI VAIJINATH JOGDAND

CASE ANALYSIS SUBMITTED TO

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE, CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE AWARD OF DEGREE OF

MASTER OF LAWS (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW)

Under the supervision of

PROF. PRATIKSHA BHALEKAR MAM

MANIKCHAND PAHADE LAW COLLEGE

CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR - 431001

MAHARASHTRA, INDIA

MARCH 2024
 Page |2

CASE ANALYSIS ON M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS VERSUS

MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS

AYODHYA TITLE DISPUTE

PARTIES:

Petitioners: M. Siddiq (Deceased); Maulana Asshad Rashidi; Sunni Central Board of Waqfs.

Lawyers: Rajeev Dhavan; Raju Ramachandran.

Respondents: Mahant Suresh Das; Nirmohi Akhara; Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman; Uttar
Pradesh; District Collector (Faizabad); City Magistrate (Faizabad); Superintendent of Police
(Faizabad); All India Hindu Mahasabha; Arya Maha Praseshik Sabha; All India Sanatan
Dharam Sabha.

Lawyers: Tushar Mehta; Subramaniam Swamy; CS Vaidyanathan; Ranjit Kumar; K

Parasaran; Harish Salve.

Decided: 9 November 2019

CITATION: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10866-10867 OF 2010.

Appealed from High Court of Allahabad

Judges sitting: Ranjan Gogoi (CJI), Sharad Arvind Bobde,

D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Naze

 Page |3

• ABSTRACT

A religion gives a bunch of conviction which further give a motivation throughout everyday
life. In the present modern time, there is a rise in the idea of secularism. Secularism is an idea
where an element is religion nonpartisan. In our Indian constitution strict opportunity is a key
right, every individual has their own entitlement to declare any religion they like.

India is a position of strict variety. The word common can be found in the preface
which was presented in 42nd amendment moreover secularism is reflected in article 25 to 26
and 29 to 30 which implies our Indian constitution recognizes secularism. Nonetheless, the
term secularism isn't explicitly tracked down in constitution. It is extensively referred to that
India is perceived as a common state, yet anyway it stringently doesn't follow the partition
among religion and state, choosing to obtrude in the domain of religion by treating religions
similarly. The best model is Ayodhya debate which was recorded just about quite a while
back. The essential question was for the land where the Muslims requested for the
development of Babri masjid while the Hindus requested for the development of Slam
Mandir which traces all the way back to 1853. This paper analyzes how value of religion is
applied on account of Ayodhya debate. The paper likewise contains a short history about the
beginning of the Ayodhya question. Further it talks about the short realities and judgment
articulated by the noteworthy High Court. It likewise manages the idea of secularism and
how it connects with Ayodhya question. This paper give idea about what change might have
been done so there could be upgrade in the ongoing circumstance of the Ayodhya question.
 Page |4

• INTRODUCTION

The historic Ayodhya judgment is flawless in every way. Indian people have deep sentiments
and regard for their religion and religious events. It is both beneficial and terrible for them. We
usually believe that we should be devoted to our deities and respect our religion. We’ve also
heard about religious extremism. In a country like India, it is not a hidden occurrence. In order
to conserve, defend, and sustain the culture and traditions of all religions, India has enshrined
the idea of secularism in its Constitution. Regardless, people’s various attitudes and views
create discord in society, which leads to violence and disruption. In your community, you may
also hear the phrase “Mandir wahi banayenge” and the song “Mandir wahi banayenge.” Now
we shall attempt to explain the history, context, and difficulties. The 5-judge bench of the Apex
Court finally reached a consensus on November 9, 2019, to end a ten-year political and
communal land dispute. For the first time, a constitutional bench rather than a two-judge panel
resolved a civil case. The judgment was then read out in open court by the CJI rather than the
lead author because it did not include the names of the writers. The judges agreed to withhold
the identities because they wanted to address the public as a group on such a crucial issue.
Third, a 116-page unsigned “addendum” to the 929-page judgment was added.
 Page |5

• HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE/ BACKGROUND

Ayodhya holds a central place in Hindu religious beliefs as the birthplace of Lord Rama,
featuring prominently in the Hindu epic Ramayana. It is considered one of the seven sacred
cities (Sapta Puri) in Hinduism. Meanwhile, Muslim history tells of the Babri Masjid, a mosque
purportedly built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, a general of the first Mughal emperor Babur. The
existence of a Hindu temple at the site before the mosque's construction has been a contentious
issue. The dispute itself first surfaced in the 19th century when both communities began to hold
religious activities in close proximity.

Significance of Ayodhya

Ayodhya, a city located in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh, is often associated with an aura of
spiritual reverence. This city is of great importance in Hindu mythology, as it is believed to be
the birthplace of Lord Rama, a central figure in the epic Ramayana. For Hindus, Ayodhya has
long been a religious pilgrimage site, often referred to as one of the seven sacred cities or 'Sapta
Puri'.

The Babri Masjid and its Historical Importance

However, Ayodhya is not just significant for Hindus. Muslims also hold a historical connection
with the city, particularly through the Babri Masjid. This mosque is said to have been
constructed in the 16th century by Mir Baqi, a general under Mughal Emperor Babur. The
mosque stood for several centuries as a place of worship for Muslims, a symbol of the Muslim
heritage in the region.

The Emergence of the Ayodhya Dispute

The contention began to surface when both Hindu and Muslim communities claimed the same
site - the Babri Masjid area - as their own for religious activities. According to Hindu belief,
the mosque was constructed after demolishing a temple that originally marked Lord Rama's
birthplace. Over time, these beliefs gave rise to legal disputes, communal unrest, and eventually
 Page |6

led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992, marking a significant escalation in the
conflict.

The Ayodhya dispute is thus not just a religious or legal controversy; it's a reflection of the
historical tensions and shared heritage of two of India's largest religious communities. As such,
understanding its historical background is key to comprehending its complexities and
implications.

The Dispute Intensifies

In the years following India's independence, the Ayodhya dispute witnessed significant
escalations. In December 1949, Hindu idols were mysteriously placed inside the mosque,
leading to the site's locking by the authorities and triggering communal unrest. Subsequently,
in 1986, the site was unlocked, stoking further controversy. The most critical event was in
December 1992 when a political rally turned violent, leading to the demolition of the Babri
Masjid by Hindu nationalists. This incident sparked nationwide communal riots and marked a
significant turning point in the dispute.

Ayodhya Dispute Legal Proceedings

Following the demolition, a series of legal cases were filed in various courts. Central to the
dispute was the question of whether a Hindu temple existed at the site before the mosque's
construction. The Archaeological Survey of India conducted an excavation in 2003 and
reported evidence of a large structure beneath the mosque. The legal battle eventually reached
the Supreme Court of India, which in August 2019 took over the hearing of the case.

Initial Court Cases

The first legal implication in the Ayodhya dispute emerged in 1949 when an idol of Lord Rama
was placed inside the Babri Masjid, leading to the lock-up of the site. This incident spurred a
series of lawsuits in the 1950s and '60s, as different parties sought control of the disputed site.

Role of the Allahabad High Court

 Page |7

A significant juncture in the legal journey was in 2010 when the Allahabad High Court
pronounced a judgment to divide the disputed land into three parts. However, the decision
failed to resolve the issue and was subsequently challenged in the Supreme Court of India.

Involvement of the Archaeological Survey of India

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) played a vital role in the legal proceedings, providing
crucial archaeological evidence. Ordered by the Allahabad High Court, ASI conducted a
thorough excavation at the disputed site in 2003 and found indications of a large Hindu
religious structure pre-existing the Babri Masjid.
 Page |8

• FACTS OF THE CASE:

It was the story of an Ayodhya city which cohabits both, Hindu (who claim birthplace of Lord
Rama) and Muslim (who see it as a city which locates Babri Mosque which was built by first
Mughal emperor, Babur in 1528). First religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in the year of
1850 over a nearby mosque at Hanuman Garhi. In this process, the Babri Mosque was attacked
by Hindus. Local Hindus always demand occasionally for the possession of the land where
Babri mosque was established and they should be allowed to build a temple on that land. They
believed that the Babri mosque was built by breaking a Hindu Temple. But, their demand was
always refused by the Colonial Government. On 22nd December 1949, an offshoot of Hindu
Mahasabha called Akhil Bharatiya Ramayana Mahasabha (ABRM) organised 9 days
continuous recitation of Ramcharitmanas. At the end of which, Hindu activists broke into the
mosque and established idols of Rama and Sita inside. Jawaharlal Nehru ordered to remove
idols but the same was refused by a local official, K.K.K. Nair (known for his Hindu nationalist
connections), claiming it would lead to communal riots. The Police locked the gates and entry
was banned for both, Hindu as well as Muslim. Priests were allowed to enter for daily worship
as idols were present inside and Mosque had been converted into a de facto temple. Both Sunni
Waqf Board and AMRM filed a civil suit in local court claiming their religious rights on site.

The legal battle over Ayodhya began in 1950 when a petition was first filed by Gopal Singh
Visharad, who was refused entry. He was Ayodhya secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha, an
organization formed to oppose the secular principle of the Congress party. The court dragged
on the issue for almost a decade and in 1959 the Nirmohi Akhara filed another complaint
claiming that the area should be in their possession. In response to the above-mentioned
lawsuits, the Sunni Central Waqf Council filed a counter-request in 1961. The Council was
established by Indian law to protect and preserve Muslim religious and cultural sites.
 Page |9

• ISSUE RAISED IN THIS CASE:

In this case, the controversy cantered on the ownership of property recognized as “Lord
Rama’s” birthplace and the background of the “Babri Mosque”.

1) “Is the property in suit the site of Janam Bhumi of Sri Ram Chandra Ji?”

2) Is there a Janam Bhumi temple with idols within, as claimed in paragraph three of the
complaint?

3) Is the subject property the Babri Masjid, a mosque built by Emperor Babar?

4(a) when was it constructed, and who built it—Babar, as the plaintiffs claim, or Meer Baqui,
as defendant No. 13 claims?

(b) Whether, as claimed by defendant number 13, the structure had been erected after a
purported Hindu temple had been destroyed. And if so, what effect?

5) Do Hindus worship the disputed location as “Sri Ram Janam Bhumi or Janam Asthan”, and
do they have a legal obligation to go there as a holy site of pilgrimage since the beginning of
time? And if so, what effect?

6) How true are the claims made in paragraphs 19 and 20 of the complaint that the premises in
dispute, or any portion thereof, is where “Lord Rama” was born? And if so, what effect?
 P a g e | 10

• ARGUMENTS FROM THE PARTIES OF THE CASE:

“Nirmohi Akhara”

If one of the Hindu sects wins, the Akhara should be permitted to worship the deity. “If the
court decides to uphold the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 ruling and the Muslim parties say
they won’t build on the disputed site, the court should order them to turn over their portion of
the land to the Hindu parties”. Additionally, the court should direct the government to give
property to the Muslim side so they may build a mosque away from the conflict.

“Ram Lalla Virajman”

“Ram Lalla Virajman” submitted a written petition asking the court to grant Ram Lalla
possession of all the contested lands. The proclamation states that neither the Nirmohi Akhara
nor Muslim organizations should be given access to any of the disputed land.

“Ram Janambhoomi Punar Sudhar Samiti”

Only a “Ram Temple” should be permitted to be constructed on the disputed site in Ayodhya.
Once the temple is completed, a trust must be established to govern it.

“Gopal Singh Visharad”

 P a g e | 11

Gopal Singh Visharad, whose family would have done rites on the temple site for generations,
maintained that offering prayers to “Ram Janmabhoomi” is his constitutional prerogative.[5]
According to his comments, there should be no compromise in the “Ram Janmabhoomi”
dispute.

“Sunni Waqf Board”

The Commission has declared that it wants the same solution that was sought during the
hearings. During the proceedings, Commission lawyer “Rajeev Dhawan” asked that the Masjid
be restored before it was demolished on December 6, 1992.

“Hindu Mahasabha”

The SC is anticipated to establish a trust to govern the “Ram Temple” that will be erected on
the disputed site in Ayodhya. To deal with this trust, the Supreme Court should appoint an
administrator.

“Shia Waqf Board”

In their petition for relief before the HC of Allahabad, the Muslim parties argued that they
should abandon their claim to the disputed territory and turn it over to the Hindu parties in
order for a “Ram Temple” to be constructed there. In a written statement, the “Shia Waqf board
of directors” recommended that a “Ram Temple” be erected on the contested Ayodhya site.
Hindu groups should now be allowed to access the property that was previously designated for
the Sunni Waqf Council according to the High Court’s ruling.
 P a g e | 12

• CASE ANALYSIS

The decision must incorporate proceedings brought in 1950, 1959, 1961, and 1989 against the
contested property. 9 On September 30, 2010, the Allahabad High Court issued a judgement in
this dispute. The Court ruled that the Hindus, Muslims, and Nirmohi Akhara were joint owners
of the disputed land, with each party receiving third of the contested territory. The Nirmohi
Akhara was a Hindu group (the "Ramanandi Bairagis") that claimed to have retained the
facility, which was used as a temple until December 1949. The dispute centered on land
ownership, which was previously Lord Rama's birthplace, as well as the history of the Babri
Mosque. The question was whether Babur demolished or altered an existing Hindu temple to
build a mosque. On August 6, 2019, the five-judge Constitution Bench presided over by Chief
Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi began daily hearings and directed lawyers to conclude their
arguments by October 1610.The Supreme Court adjourned hearings on Ayodhya's land dispute
with Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid on October 16, 2019, and postponed the decision until
November 9, 2019. The Supreme Court granted the Ram Janmabhoomi Foundation ownership
of the controversial 2,77-acre property in Ayodhya in a majority verdict. The Muslims were
instructed to construct a mosque in a "appropriate" and "prominent" location on a different
piece of property in Ayodhya. The Court also ordered the government to create a plan and build
a temple at Ayodhya within three months.

Following a 14-day hearing, the Supreme Court invited all parties to make written submissions
in this matter for three days, explaining what they sincerely prayed for. The following is a
summary of written declarations made by various interested parties:

Nirmohi Akhara is a Buddhist temple in Nirmohi, India. The right to build a Ram
Temple on the disputed site, as well as to manage Nirmohi Akhara's grounds after the Temple
is finished. “If the court agrees to uphold the High Court of Allahabad's 2010 judgments and
the Muslim parties declare that they will not (the High Court of Allahabad's decision divided
the disputed territory among three parties: the Sunni Waqf Council, the Nirmohi Akhara, and
the Ram Lalla).” The court should order the government to provide land beyond the combat
zone to the Muslim side for the construction of a mosque.

Ram Lalla Virajman

 P a g e | 13

According to Ram Lalla Virajman's written petition, the court should award Ram Lalla all of
the contested lands. The proclamation states that no part of the contested zone should be granted
to the “Nirmohi Akhara or Muslim parties”.

Punar Sudhar Samiti Ram Janambhoomi

On the disputed Ayodhya site, only a Ram temple should be permitted. When the temple
is finished, a trust must be established to govern it.

Visharad, Gopal Singh

“Gopal Singh Visharad, whose family has historically prayed at the temple site12, said
that it is his constitutional right to pray to Ram Janmabhoomi. In his statement, he emphasized
that no compromise should be reached in the Ram Janmabhoomi conflict.”

Sunni Waqf Council

The Commission has stated that it intends to follow the same strategy that was
advocated throughout the hearings. During the hearings, the Council's advocate, Rajeev
Dhawan, urged a return to the original design of the Babri Masjid, which was demolished on
December 6, 1992.

The Mahasabha is a Hindu assembly.

The Supreme Court is expected to establish a trust to oversee the construction of a Ram
temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya. The Supreme Court should appoint a trustee to oversee
the administration of this trust. Waqf Board of Shia Muslims.

During the relief petition filed before the Allahabad High Court, the Muslim parties
claimed that the disputed land had been abandoned and given to the Hindu party so that the
Ram temple could be built. The “Chia Waqf’s board of Directors” accentuated that the Shia
Waqf Council, not the Sunni Waqf Council, legally owns the disputed country. The land given
by the High Court to the Sunni Waqf Council should now be granted to the Hindu parties.

The case study and the in-depth analysis of the Ayodhya dispute brings out the
following conclusions. Certainly, the conclusions derived from the case study would serve as
a useful framework for checking and settling similar sacred site disputes, both in India and in
other parts of the world.
 P a g e | 14

•. Failure to provide a speedy resolution to sacred site disputes can result in exacerbation of
communal conflict and denial of human rights.

Had the Ayodhya dispute been settled in 1950, much of the violence and human rights
violations would have been averted. The delay by the courts to adjudicate the title suits for
forty-two years has led to the demolition of the mosque. The post-demolition period,
particularly between 6 and 13 December 1992, witnessed outrageous communal riots, which
according to the official records has claimed 1,200 lives. However, unofficially the number
should have been much higher. By 7 December 1992, communal riots had spread all over UP
and Delhi and to the states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh, Kamataka, Punjab, Bihar, Kerala, West Bengal and Assam. Communal riots were very
common in India. Most telling was the one that immediately followed the Partition. It is no
exaggeration to say that communal hatred has divided the nation ever since the Babri Masjid-
Ram Janmabhumi dispute came to the fore, at least from 1985. M.M. Jacob, then Minister of
State for Home, informed the Upper House of Parliament that in 1989 and 1990, a total of 2025
people fell victim to communal frenzy in sixty-two major riots in the country. That the Minister
attributed the communal killings to the heightening of tension following the Babri Masjid-Ram
Janmabhumi controversy is a vital point to be underlined.

The civil suits for title filed in 1950 in the Ayodhya dispute were transferred to the High
Court in 1989. They remain at a trial phase. No matter what the High Court decision is
regarding the title suits, its verdict is bound to be appealed to the Supreme Court by the losing
party. So, it may be seen how the adjudication process could be prolonged for many more years.
Until then the dispute will be alive, which will continue to threaten communal harmony. A
biased judiciary that remains passive, or delays, will deny justice (as was demonstrated in the
civil cases in the Ayodhya dispute), and will infringe on fundamental rights, and may continue
to exacerbate communal conflicts. Domestic case law generally remains the formal record and
basis for appraisal of application of international human rights standards in a state.334 The
Ayodhya case study has highlighted the failure of Indian courts in applying these standards
domestically.

2. Legal rights granted to a religious community are insufficient if the state organs are
unwilling to use their power to enforce them.

The Indian Constitution grants unambiguous legal rights to religious communities.

Articles 25-30 of the Constitution delineate the rights of religious communities and minority
 P a g e | 15

communities. Moreover, Sections 295-298 of IPC ensure protection of sacred sites from
defilement, desecration, and destruction. Besides, the 1991 Protection of Places of Worship Act
extends the protection to all sacred sites in case of dispute. Even though these legal rights are
available to secure the rights of religious communities, failure of the state organs in enforcing
them makes the sacred sites vulnerable to attacks and destruction. There was only one order
from the courts in the Ayodhya dispute, this being to maintain the 'status quo', and even this
was not fully executed by the state organs. In addition, the UP state government also defied the
orders of the union government to remain neutral in the dispute and to increase the security
around the Babri Masjid. This establishes the communal bias of the state government.

On 6 December 1992, the day of the demolition of the mosque, the Supreme Court itself
observed that a grave situation had emerged. It is a matter of concern that a constitutionally
elected government could not discharge sensitive duties in a matter of this magnitude.

However, the union government had a duty, as directed by the Supreme Court, to act in
a proper and permissible way to protect the Babri Masjid. The subsequent demolition of the
mosque and failure to prevent the building of the makeshift temple by the Sangh Parivar
showed the inefficiency of the union government to enforce its power. The statement of V.P.
Singh, the former Prime Minister of India, that 'the fall of the three

domes of the Babri Masjid were in fact the collapse of the three pillars - Legislature,
democracy' summarises that legal rights granted to a religious community are rendered
insufficient if the state organs are unwilling to use their power to enforce them.

3. Religiously based dispute over a sacred site can be used to mobilise community
identities for political gains.

It is obvious from the Ayodhya dispute how communal forces could use a religious
dispute as a cloak to gain political power, which has been amply demonstrated in the rise to
power of the BJP in national politics. In pursuance of power, these communal forces have no
regard for secular values, democratic principles, or human rights. Mobilisation for gaining
political power seems to be one and only agenda.

Contemporary political identity of the Hindu and Muslim communities is built along
religious lines. Communal violence resulting from the Ayodhya dispute proved to be a turning
point in Indian politics which has led to each community having deeply entrenched, polarised
political views. The tragedy of the Ayodhya dispute is that it has eroded the belief of
 P a g e | 16

communities in the federalist, secular principles enshrined in the Constitution. Also, the
political confrontation encourages religious-cultural confrontation and that in term strengthens
the former. The case study establishes the fact that the use of a sacred site dispute helped to
politicise communal identities, which in tum helped to strengthen the political muscle of the
communal forces.

Since sacred sites are tied up with the identity of communities, any attack on them is
seen as an attack on the community and will naturally be defended vigorously. This was
demonstrated in the ensuing violence that took place all over India after the demolition.
Religious disputes have an influence beyond the boundary of a particular country and may
threaten the peace of a whole region.

4. Undermining of the established secular values leads to the erosion of the minority
rights.

From the case study on the Ayodhya dispute, it has been established that the courts
continued to support the majoritarian religious community by allowing the Hindus to worship
in the disputed site while excluding the Muslims. Obviously, this was an assault on the
principles of secularism and equality. Throughout the dispute, the judiciary seems to have
neglected the principles of secularism and protection of minority rights. Minority communities
still view secularism as a guarantee to their fundamental right.

Secularism enshrined in the Constitution is seen as the linchpin that binds together all
the diverse groups of people within India. Tied up with secularism is the principle of equality.
Individuals and all religious communities have equal rights, and the state should not
discriminate among its citizens on the basis of their religion. So, equality along with secularism,
are essential to protect the rights of minorities, the cornerstones of democracy.

As secularism is basic to the Constitution, any attack on a sacred place could be

construed as an attack on secularism as established by the Supreme Court in the Bommai case.

Similar opinion was expressed by Justice Sawanth as, 'the concept of secularism as
religious tolerance and equal treatment of all religious groups includes an assurance of the
protection of life, property, and places of worship for all religious groups'. This may establish
that if a state subverts a fundamental constitutional principle such as secularism, it is impossible
for it to run its administration in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Consequently, as Justice Ramaswamy points out, 'social disunity is bound to corrupt leading to
 P a g e | 17

national disintegration, The State and the judiciary are equally guilty of undermining the
principles of secularism and protection of minority rights, and could be held culpable for all
the inter-communal strife which has taken place during the last two decades. The union and
state governments, by their actions and non-actions, have brought down the mosque, observes
Brass. Hence they need to take responsibility to protect secular values, and rights of minority
religious communities.
 P a g e | 18

• OBITER DICTA

In this case, the Court resolved a sacred site dispute between Hindus and Muslims. The Court
had awarded the Ram god (installed in the Masjid in 1949) unique legal personality, and the
idol represented Hindu interests. The Sunni Waqf Board advocated for Muslim interests. The
Court based its decision on evidence that Hindus have remained in the disputed territory's outer
courtyard since 1857 alone, whereas the interior courtyard has been contested by Hindus and
Muslims. Between 1528 until 1857, the Court was unable to determine who owned the
contested territory due to a lack of evidence. Based on these findings, the Court granted the
Hindus access to the contested site and ordered the government to establish a trust to construct
a new temple. Nonetheless, the Court accepted that the Babri Masjid had been demolished
unfairly and that Muslims had the right to be compensated. As a result, the Ayodhya Sunni
Waqf Board now owns 5 acres of property on which to construct a new mosque. The Masjid
was administered by the Sunni Central Waqf board, which supported Muslim interests. Several
parties vied for Hindu votes. A complaint was filed on behalf of the Hindu God Ram, known
as "Suit 5," claiming to represent the god through the idol. The Court determined that the idol
merited its own legal personality since it represented the Hindu people's interests. According
to the Court, granting religious icons independent legal status shielded property from
misappropriation, especially if the property was not transferred to a trust (as in this case).
However, the Court rejected to grant legal personality to immovable property such as a holy
site, arguing that a legal fiction constructed for convenience has a separate legal character. The
Court accepted the inferential nature of the archaeological findings and the uncertainty of
historical documents. However, whether the Babri Masjid was built on top of a temple was not
a deciding factor in the title. While the Court determined that the prevalence of evidence
suggested that there was a structure prior to the Babri Masjid, it also highlighted the limitations
of archaeological evidence and testimony in an aural culture. From 1528 through 1857, the
Sunni Central Waqf Board showed no proof of worship or sole authority of the inner courtyard.
The Court was unable to determine whether Muslims occupied the contested land
only from 1528 until 1857. Instead of establishing ownership, a fencing between the inner and
outer courtyards, and therefore the Hindu and Muslim religions, was built in 1857 to ensure
order between the two groups. From 1856 to 1857, Hindus worshiped only in the outside
courtyard of the Masjid. Hindus continued to pray along the barrier, claiming that "Lord Ram's
birthplace was within and under the central dome of the mosque." Indeed, disturbances in 1934
 P a g e | 19

and the construction of idols in the courtyard in 1949 demonstrated that Muslims did not have
complete control over the area. As a result, Hindus had exclusive custody of the outer court,
but the courtyard inside was contested. A five-judge constitutional Court bench unanimously
granted the Hindus title to the challenged land. The Court ruled that Hindus had a superior
claim of possession than Muslims because they controlled the outside courtyard and challenged
the internal courtyard. Nonetheless, the Court noted that the decision was founded on
likelihood. The Court ordered the Central Government to establish a trust to oversee the
property, which included the construction of a Ram temple. While Nirmohi Akhara's claim was
dropped due to time constraints, it was represented in the Trust. The Supreme Court ordered
the federal and state governments to award the Sunni Central Waqf Board 5 acres in
Ayodhya for a mosque.
 P a g e | 20

• MAIN FINDINGS :

The Ayodhya dispute began by the illegal installation of the idols of Hindu deities Ram and
Sita inside the Babri Masjid in 1950. Subsequently the legal proceeding started to establish the
right of the property between a few members of the Hindu religious community and the Muslim
community. After a long legal battle, the militant communal groups from the Hindu religious
community destroyed the mosque in 1992. Because the dispute has been allowed to fester since
1950, it has led to divisive entrenched positions on the part of the Hindu and Muslim religious
communities leading to a negative mindset in which neither community is willing to accept a
decision against them. In tum, these entrenched positions taken by these religious communities
have eroded secular and democratic principles guaranteed by the Indian constitution, with the
effect that these communities now voice their concerns couched in religious terms. Now the
dispute is not seen as a legal dispute per se, but as a politico-religious dispute affecting the
body politic of India. After the Ayodhya dispute, there has been a tendency by the Hindu
Nationalist political parties such as BJP and Shiv Sena to base their political campaign on the
religious sentiments of their communities. Especially from the 1990s onwards these political
manoeuvrings surrounding the Ayodhya dispute have led to their enhancing vote share and
being elected to power in various states and at the national level. Hence a fair and neutral
resolution on this dispute is unlikely in the near future.

Since this dispute has divided Indian society vertically along religious lines, any
judgement will be seen as an injustice to the other community, very likely resulting in more
and more religious riots. This may lead to egregious human rights abuses of members
belonging to these religious communities, particularly minority religious communities.
judgement if rendered in favour of the majority community, will serve as a precedent for the
Hindu militants to justify their claims that more than three thousand sacred sites belonging to
minority communities belong to them. Therefore. there is a greater likelihoodat the nation will
plunge into a spiral of communal violence causing more human rights violations.
Consequently, a fair legal settlement might be unfeasible in the existing situation.

The second question is answered by the evidence delineated in the case study. It
suggests that the three organs of the Indian state, the legislative, judiciary and the executive,
had failed to protect the Babri Masjid from illegal demolition and to prevent the subsequent
nationwide human rights abuses. The Ayodya dispute has undermined the established secular
values in the country, and has created apprehension among minority religious communities.
 P a g e | 21

The subsequent growth of the BJP, a Hindu nationalist party, has threatened the secular nature
of India and minority religious communities and their sacred sites were freely attacked by
members of the Sangh Parivar. 1 Moreover, the federal nature of India was challenged by the
state government of UP not adhering to the instructions of the union government. By allowing
the demolition to take place, the state government abdicated from its duty to protect the rights
of its citizens. As a secular government, it has a responsibility to put law before faith in
protecting the rights of its citizens. In the Ayodhya dispute, the government gave priority to its
religious faith ignoring the faith of minority communities and thus undermined the law. This
research recommends that to maintain the secular, democratic, social fabric of India, state
organs should give priority to constitution and treat all religions equally in protecting their
rights. The third question queried the inadequacy of the courts in settling this dispute. Though
the role of an independent judiciary is vital in settling the dispute and providing remedy to a
minority community, the lacklustre attitude of the courts has proved inadequate to protect the
sacred site and protect the victims from subsequent riots and violence. The suits which began
in 1950 could not get a final verdict until 1992 when the mosque was demolished.

All these years, the courts requested the parties to maintain the 'status quo' thereby
ignoring the rights of the minorities in favour of the established religious community.
Subsequent to the demolition. t.he members belonging to the Sangh organisation has built a
temporary temple and kept the idols there. Though the courts are aware that legally this is not
maintainable, they asked to maintain 'status quo' which is a clear violation of constitutional
provisions.

After the demolition, the courts have not been able to punish those who were involved
in the demolition of the mosque and subsequent riots which claimed thousands of lives.3 The
delay in bringing those to justice is seen as example of the courts inadequacy in handling
disputes such as Ayodhya. This delay can be attributed to the political process existing in the
country. In 1986, the court allowed the opening of the locks of the Babri mosque to the Hindus,
which was possible only because of the tacit support of the congress government..t Although
Indian Constitution empowers the courts with enough provisions, the case study points out that
the courts failed to act impartially and used delay tactics to postpone the dispute culminating
in the demolition of the Babri mosque. This research proposes that the judiciary need to remain
independent and impartial in providing speedy justice to the victims of human rights which is
lacking deeply in the Ayodhya dispute. The failure of the domestic legal system leads to the
fourth question which is concerned with the international human rights law. International law
 P a g e | 22

provides a way to redress obvious human rights violations when domestic organs fail. There is
a necessity, therefore, to develop international law to include protection of the sacred sites as
it is a significant component of freedom of religion. But given its nature, international human
rights law offers only a supervisory framework for the promotion and protection of human
rights. However, the member states are obliged to protect, fulfil, and promote human rights
within their jurisdiction. Protection of sacred sites could be covered under four different rights
recognised in international law. They include the right to freedom of religion, rights of the
minorities. right to property and protection of cultural rights during armed conflict. The existing
international law provisions, however. have not included protection of sacred sites as a right to
a religious community. An analysis of these rights reveals that international human rights law
is mainly concerned with individual rights and except for a few rights, such as prohibition of
genocide, they do not protect collective rights of groups.s Since protection of sacred sites falls
on collective rights of a religious community, they do not appear, apparently, on any of these
international law instruments. Moreover, since sacred sites and their protection are not
recognised as a right, the existing provisions of international law and their enforcement
mechanisms do not offer any remedy to sacred sites disputes similar to that at Ayodhya. This
necessitates developing provisions in the existing international law to include protection of
sacred sites, as developing right to freedom of religion is a contribution of this research.
Regional organisations have promoted human rights protection in their region through human
rights mechanisms such as human rights commissions and regional human rights courts which
have complaints mechanisms which allow not only for states but also individuals and non-
governmental organisations. The European region has by far the most advanced system
compared to the inter-American and African regional systems. Although there is a need to
improve their performances in protecting human rights in their region, they are more useful
and practical than global human rights instruments.6 There is no regional human rights system
existing in the South-Asian region which could be used to redress disputes similar to Ayodhya.
This leads to the fifth question which is concerned with drafting a model convention for the
protection of sacred sites in South Asia. The facts provided in the fifth chapter support that a
model convention thus becomes necessary. Internal security and peace, stability and human
rights in this region today are primarily threatened by the resurgence of religious militancy
among the South Asian states.7 The focus of the militant religious groups is often on sacred
sites belonging to other religious communities. It has been established in the Ayodhya dispute
that attacks on sacred sites result in human rights violations and threaten peace in the region.
When the rights of the minorities are violated, civil society is weakened. Secular voices in these
 P a g e | 23

countries are slowly losing faith in the law enforcement machinery, particularly in the judiciary.
These reasons necessitate the member states of SAARC to adopt a human rights treaty to
protect the sacred sites.
 P a g e | 24

• JUDGEMENT

A Supreme Court panel of five judges heard the title litigation cases from August through
October 2019. On November 9th, 2019, the SC—presided over by “Chief Justice Ranjan
Gogoi”—issued its decision, overturning the previous decision and stating that the government
owned the land based on tax records. He further ordered that the land be given to a trust so that
it might be used to build the Hindu temple. He also ordered the government to provide the
“Waqf Sunni Council” with an extra five acres of land so that it can build the mosque. These
are the 8 points that were highlighted in the judgment:-

The SC gave the god Ram Lalla the whole 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya.

The SC mandated that Muslims receive a 5-acre alternative plot of land in a visible place from
the governments of Central and Uttar Pradesh in order to build a mosque.

To build confidence, the court asked that the Centre take into account offering “Nirmohi
Akhara” some sort of representation.

The SC dismissed the petition of “Nirmohi Akhara”, which claimed to be the custodian of the
contested territories.

The “Union government was mandated by the Supreme Court of India (SC) to establish a trust
within three months to build the Ram Mandir on the controversial site where the “Babri Masjid”
was torn down in 1992”.

The court “determined that the structure under the contentious site in Ayodhya was not an
Islamic edifice, but the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) was unable to establish whether a temple
had been demolished to make room for a mosque”.

The court also declared that “Muslims and Hindus both regard the site of the Babri Masjid to
be the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Supreme Court further decided that it was unlawful to
demolish the “Babri Masjid mosque” in 1992. The court also ruled that Hindus’ belief that
“Lord Rama” was born on the disputed spot where the Masjid formerly stood is unassailable”.

The SC declared that the “Hindus had demonstrated that they were in charge of the site in the
outer courtyard of the dispute and that the “Waqf Central Sunni Council” of the UP had not
proven its case in the Ayodhya dispute”.
 P a g e | 25

RATIONALE BEHIND THE JUDGEMENT

In this case, the court dealt with a disagreement between Muslims and Hindus over a holy
location. The “Sunni Waqf Board” represented Muslim interests, whereas the Ram deity
represented Hindu interests and was given legal personality. The Court based its decision on
evidence that Hindus have occupied the outside courtyard of the disputed region continuously
since 1857, while Muslims and Hindus have disputed the inside courtyard.

The Court concluded that Muslims should get compensation since the Masjid was wrongfully
demolished. Currently, the “Ayodhya Sunni Waqf Board” has 5 acres of property that might be
used to build a new mosque. There was competition among political parties for Hindu voters.

The court found that because the idol represented the interests of the Hindu populace, it
deserved to have its own legal personality. The Court rejected the idea of granting immovable
property, like a sacred place, legal identity.

The “Sunni Central Waqf Board” did not award any proof of worship or exclusive control over
the inner courtyard between 1528 and 1857. Hindus were only permitted to pray in the Masjid’s
outer courtyard when a wall separating the two courtyards was constructed in 1857.

Hindus should own the disputed property, the Supreme Court unanimously declared, since they
had a better claim to it than Muslims.[9] The “Nirmohi Akhara’s” claim was included in the
trust that the Central Government was ordered to establish in order to oversee the site and
supervise the construction of a Ram temple.

Our view on the judgement

The paper focuses on the chronological history and the reasons behind the causation of the
dispute, which took decades to get resolved, still there exists a lot of communal disparities. The
famous judgment was given under the presence of ex-chief justice of India Mr. Dipak Mishra
and we are in support of the judiciary. The judgment supported both the communities and gave
 P a g e | 26

the disputed land to the Hindus and the Muslims were given 5 acres of land. The reasons behind
supporting the judiciary is that:

1. During 1992 the artefacts which were found did not belong to the era when the masjid was
constructed, but it existed before the construction of masjid.

2. The one who protested the construction of Ram temple was unable to prove the fact that, the
disputed land was the birthplace of lord ram and according to the history there are proofs that
lord ram existed in that place and hence that city is the birthplace of lord ram.

3. During the dispute, the communal groups were claiming that their fundamental rights are
being infringed., the right to perform any religion freely. The judiciary took the fair decision
and proper 5 arcs of land were given to the Muslims to build the mosque and perform their
religious duties.

Hence it was wrong allegations made by the Muslim community that their right to perform any
religion is being infringed or violated.
 P a g e | 27

• CONCLUSION:

This lawsuit is notable because it has included every Prime Minister of India, from
“Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi, and has lasted the longest in Indian legal history. The
Supreme Court made an effort to resolve the issue amicably and in a way that honoured both
religions on November 9th, 2019. The court granted the god Ram Lalla possession of the full
2.77 acres of the contested site in Ayodhya. It was mandated that the governments of Central
and Uttar Pradesh provide Muslims with a 5-acre alternative site in a prominent location for
the construction of a mosque. Politicians utilize the “divide and rule” tactic to win elections
by deflecting our attention to religious-related concerns. The Ayodhya case presented an
opportunity for India’s judiciary to make a priceless contribution to humanity’s odyssey
because, through its decision, it was anticipated to lay out a vision and ignite the desire in
communities around the world to seek a peaceful and legal resolution to such inter-faith
conflicts. Additionally, it would help the faithful learn how to accept and get along with
things that could be unusual, varied, or thought to be such.