RAJIV GANDHI NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF LAW,
PUNJAB
8TH
SEMESTER
CASE COMMENT
JPJR PROJECT
M SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS VS MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS
SUBMITTED TO:
SUBMITTED BY: Mr. Siddhartha Fuller
Himanshu Bhat
Roll Number: 19147
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION:..........................................................................................................................2
FACTS OF THE CASE:..............................................................................................................2
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:.....................................................................................................3
ISSUES RAISED:...........................................................................................................................5
JUDGEMENT:...............................................................................................................................5
CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION:
India is a unique country which is adopting advancement rapidly and is also known for its
diversity at the same time. In India, people have strong feelings and respect for their religion
and religious ceremonies. It is good as well as bad for them also. Normally, we think that we
should be loyal towards our god, respect our religion. But at the same time, politicians take
advantage of these feelings. They use to connect their policy and agenda with religion and try
to influence people to vote. Politicians use the concept of “Divide and rule” by influencing
and manipulating people with the help of their religious feelings and emotions towards their
god. We have also heard about religious violence. It is not a hidden phenomenon in a country
like India. India has adopted the principle of secularism in the Constitution in order to
preserve, protect and maintain the culture and traditions of all the religions. One such dispute
arose in the case of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, popularly known as
Ayodhya Dispute Case. You may also hear the slogan and song “Mandir wahi banayengei”
in your society. In the next pages we will the discuss history, background, issues raised and
verdict passed in this case.
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 violence1 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
1
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11441890
(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.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:2
1) 1528 – this was the year when the Mughal Emperor Babur demolished the Ram
temple and constructed Babri masjid
2) 1859 – in this year the Colonial British Administration made a separate area by
fencing the site for worshiping by both Hindus and Muslim.
3) 1949 – in this year the idols of the gods were placed inside the dome of the mosque.
Suits were also filed from both the sides under section 145 of the Crpc. The Faizabad
Court passed an order by placing the disputed site under the custodial responsibility of
the state Government. Further the court of Additional Magistrate under his
preliminary order directed that the disputed site to be under the receivership pf the
Chairman of Municipal Board.
4) 1959 – the Nirmohi Akhada filed the title suit and claimed for management right and
possession of the Janmabhoomi.
2
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_time-line-of-ayodhya-dispute-and-slew-of-legal-suits_1444808
5) 1961 – the Sunni Waqf Board also filed the suit (suit. 4) and claimed possession of the
area.
6) 1984 – a committee was formed by the Hindu group which in turn started a movement
to build the temple at the disputed site.
7) 1989 – Another suit on behalf of Ram Lalla was filed by senior advocate Deoki N
Agarwal. A foundation of new temple was laid adjacent to the disputed structure by
Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
8) 1992 – on 6th December 1992, the Babri Masjid was demolished by the 2,00,000 Kar
sevaks who were associated with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other organisations.
This demolition led to large communal riots around the country.
9) 2010 – In the 2: 1 majority, the Allahabad High court ruled that the disputed land to be
divided into three parts i.e. between Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhada and Ram
Lalla. Where the area of inner court yard has gone in the favour of Ram Lalla, next
the area of Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutra has gone in the favour of Nirmohi Akhada
and the rest one third partition has gone in the favour of Sunni Waqf Board. This
portion was divided after the adjustment of the extra land where it goes to the
government.
10) 2018 – on 27th September the three-judge bench decided that the bench will continue
to hear the dispute on the question whether the dispute be referred to the larger bench
i.e. Constitutional Bench comprising five- judges.
11) 2019 – On assuming the post of Chief Justice of India after the retirement of Chief
Justice Dipak Mishra, on 8 January Ranjan Gogoi assigned the dispute to the larger
Bench (five- judge Constitutional Bench) and started the hearing.
ISSUES RAISED:
The issue of this case revolved around the possession of land traditionally regarded as the
birthplace of Lord Rama and the history of Babri Mosque.
One of the major issues of this case was: -
Whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to construct a mosque
by Babur?
JUDGEMENT:
The bench of five judges of the Supreme Court heard the litigation cases on the title from
August to October 2019. On 9th November 2019, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice
Ranjan Gogoi3, announced its verdict; he quashed the previous ruling and ruled that the land
belonged to the government on the basis of the tax records. He further ordered that the land
be turned over to a trust for the construction of the Hindu temple. He also ordered the
government to donate another five-acre piece of land to the Waqf Sunni Council to build the
mosque.
There were some points that were highlighted in the Judgement of this case4: -
The Supreme Court granted the entire 2.77 5acres of disputed land in Ayodhya to
the deity Ram Lalla.
The Supreme Court ordered the government of Central and Uttar Pradesh to
allocate 5-acre alternative land to Muslims in a prominent location to build a
mosque.
3
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/meet-the-five-judges-who-will-deliver-the-
ayodhya-verdict-today/articleshow/71979670.cms.
4
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/scs-verdict-on-ayodhya-land-dispute-key-takeaways/articleshow/
71980491.cms
5
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50355775
The court asked the Center to consider giving some sort of representation to
Nirmohi Akhara for setting up a trust. Nirmohi Akhara was the third party to the
Ayodhya conflict.
The Supreme Court rejected the plea of Nirmohi Akhara, who sought to control all
of the disputed lands, claiming that it was its custodian.
The Supreme Court ordered the Union government to create a trust in 3 months for
the construction of the Ram Mandir on the disputed site where Babri Masjid was
demolished in 1992.
The Supreme Court said that the structure below the disputed site in Ayodhya was
not an Islamic structure, but the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) 6did not establish
whether a temple was demolished to build a mosque.7
The court also declared that the Hindus regard the disputed site as the birthplace of
Lord Ram while the Muslims also say the same thing about the site of Babri
Masjid.
The court also declared that the Hindus’ belief that Lord Rama was born on the
disputed site where Babri Masjid was once, cannot be challenged.
The Supreme Court also declared that the 1992 demolition of the 16th-century
Babri Masjid mosque was a violation of the law8.
While reading its judgment, the Supreme Court declared that the UP’s Waqf
Central Sunni Council had not established its cause in the Ayodhya dispute and
that the Hindus had established that they were in possession of the outer courtyard
of the site in dispute.
6
https://m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/ayodhya-case-sc-says-asi-report-not-an-ordinary-
opinion-inferences-drawn-by-cultivated-minds/articleshow/71338308.cms
7
Report of Archeological Survey of India.
8
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/damage-desecration-demolition-of-babri-masjid-illegal-acts-says-
sc/articleshow/71989378.cms
CONCLUSION
This case is important because this is a prolonged case in the history of the Indian Judiciary
and witnessed all the Prime Minister of India, from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi.
Finally, this dispute was resolved on dated 9th November 2019. In this Judgement, the
Supreme Court tried to approach this case in a harmonious way and tried to establish a
balance between both the religion. The Supreme Court granted the entire 2.77 acres of
disputed land in Ayodhya to the deity Ram Lalla. The Supreme Court ordered the
government of Central and Uttar Pradesh to allocate 5-acre alternative land to Muslims in a
prominent location to build a mosque.
i
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50065277
