Ayodhya Case:- A Brief Summary

 

The Beginning

  • 1528-29

Babri Masjid was constructed in Ayodhya by Mughal Emperor Babur’s commander Mir Baqi.

  • 1885

In January 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das, claiming to be the Mahant of Ram Janmasthan instituted a suit (“Suit of 1885”) before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad. The relief which he sought was permission to build a temple on the Ramchabutra.

On 24 December 1885, the trial judge dismissed the suit, `noting that there was a possibility of riots breaking out between the two communities due to the proposed construction of a temple.

On 18 March 1886, the District Judge dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court but struck off the observations relating to the ownership of Hindus of the Chabutra contained in the judgment of the Trial Court.

On 1 November 1886, the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh dismissed the second appeal3, noting that the Mahant had failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra.

Post-Independence

  • December 22-23, 1949

The controversy entered a new phase on the night intervening 22 and 23 December 1949, when the mosque was desecrated by a group of about fifty or sixty people who broke open its locks and placed idols of Lord Ram under the central dome.

  • 1950

On 16 January 1950, a suit was instituted by a Hindu devotee, Gopal Singh Visharad, (“Suit 1”) before the Civil Judge at Faizabad, alleging that he was being prevented by officials of the government from entering the inner courtyard of the disputed site to offer worship. On the same date, an ad-interim injunction was issued in the suit. On 19 January 1950, the injunction was modified to prevent the idols from being removed from the disputed site and from causing interference in the performance of puja. On 3 March 1951, the Trial Court confirmed the ad interim order, as modified. On 26 May 1955, the appeal against the interim order was dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad.

On 5 December 1950, another suit was instituted by Paramhans Ramchandra Das (“Suit 2”) before the Civil Judge, Faizabad seeking reliefs similar to those in Suit 1. Suit 2 was subsequently withdrawn on 18 September, 1990.

  • 1959

On 17 December 1959, Nirmohi Akhara instituted a suit through its Mahant (“Suit 3”) before the Civil Judge at Faizabad claiming that its “absolute right” of managing the affairs of the Janmasthan and the temple had been impacted. A decree was sought to hand over the management and charge of the temple to the plaintiff in Suit 3.

  • 1961

On 18 December 1961, the Sunni Central Waqf Board and nine Muslim residents of Ayodhya filed a suit (“Suit 4”) before the Civil Judge at Faizabad seeking a declaration that the entire disputed site of the Babri Masjid was a public mosque and for the delivery of possession upon removal of the idols.

  • 1964

On 6 January 1964, the trial of Suits 1, 3 and 4 was consolidated and Suit 4 was made the leading case

  • 1986

On 25 January 1986, an application was filed by one Umesh Chandra before the Trial Court for breaking open the locks placed on the grill-brick wall and for allowing the public to perform darshan within the inner courtyard. On 1 February 1986, the District Judge of Faizabad issued directions to open the locks and to provide access to devotees for darshan inside the structure. In a Writ Petition, filed before the High Court in challenging the above order, an interim order was passed on 3 February 1986 directing that until further orders, the nature of the property as it existed shall not be altered.

  • 1989

On 1 July 1989, a suit (“Suit 5”) was brought before the Civil Judge, Faizabad by the deity (“Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman”) and the birth-place (“Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya”), through a next friend for a declaration of title to  the disputed premises  and to restrain the defendants from interfering with or raising any objection to the construction of a temple. Suit 5 was tried with the other suits–Title suits shifted to Allahabad High Court. Court orders status quo with respect to the disputed site.

On 10 July 1989, all suits were transferred to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. On 21 July 1989, a three judge Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court for the trial of the suits. On an application by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court passed an interim order on 14 August 1989, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute.

  • ·      1991

During the pendency of the proceedings, the State of Uttar Pradesh acquired an area of 2.77 acres comprising of the disputed premises and certain adjoining areas. This was effected by the virtue of Land Acquisition Act 1894 (“Land Acquisition Act”). The acquisition was for ‘development and providing amenities to pilgrims in Ayodhya’. A Writ Petition was filed before the High Court challenging the acquisition. By a judgment and order dated 11 December 1992, the acquisition was set aside.

  • December 6, 1992

A substantial change took place in the position at the site on 6 December 1992. A large crowd destroyed the mosque, boundary wall, and Ramchabutra. A makeshift structure of a temple was constructed at the place under the erstwhile central dome. The idols were placed there.

  • 1993: Acquisition by the Central Government and Ismail Faruqui’s case

Narsimha Rao led central government acquired an area of about 68 acres, including the premises in dispute, by a legislation called the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993 (“Ayodhya Acquisition Act 1993”). Sections 3 and 4 envisaged the abatement of all suits which were pending before the High Court. Simultaneously, the President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 143 of the Constitution. The reference was on ―whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janam Bhoomi and Babari Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards on such structure) in the area on which the structure stands….

Writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Allahabad and this Court challenging the validity of the Act of 1993. All the petitions and the reference by the President were heard together and decided by a judgment dated 24 October 1994. The decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court, titled Dr M. Ismail Faruqui v Union of India held Section 4(3), which provided for the abatement of all pending suits as unconstitutional. The rest of the Act of 1993 was held to be valid. The Constitution Bench declined to answer the Presidential reference and, as a result, all pending suits and proceedings in relation to the disputed premises stood revived. The Central Government was appointed as a statutory receiver for the maintenance of status quo and to hand over the disputed area in terms of the adjudication to be made in the suits. Supreme Court upholds validity of Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act. In Ismail Farooqi case, it concludes that mosque is not integral to Islam.

The Decision of the High Court

Bench: Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice S.U. Khan.

Dissent: Justice S.U. Khan

On 30 September 2010, the Full Bench of the High Court delivered the judgement with a majority of 2:1. The dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice Khan.  Justice S U Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal held “all the three sets of parties” – Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara – as joint holders of the disputed premises and allotted a one third share to each of them in a preliminary decree. The court had also said that the status quo should be maintained for next three months before the partition of the land takes place on the basis of metes and bounds. The three-judge bench held in their final judgment that no party could establish title over the land by way of documentary evidence, only the possession could be handed over by division. Hence the title over the land would be jointly held by the three main parties — Hindu parties, Nirmohi Akhara and the Muslim Parties.

The concerned parties preferred multiple Civil Appeals and Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court.

Proceedings Before the Supreme Court

On 9 May 2011, a two judge Bench of the Supreme Court admitted several appeals and stayed the operation of the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of the appeals, parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed premises in accordance with the directions issued in Ismail Faruqui.

In March, 2017, CJI J.S. Khehar suggested an out-of-court settlement over the dispute.

In August, 2017, a three-judge bench of CJI Dipak Misra, Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer began hearing the appeals.

On 5 December 2017, a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court rejected the plea that the appeals against the impugned judgement be referred to a larger Bench in view of certain observations of the Constitution Bench in Ismail Faruqui.

On 14 March 2018, a three judge Bench heard arguments on whether the judgment in Ismail Faruqui required reconsideration.

On 27 September 2018, the three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court by a majority of 2:1 declined to refer the judgment in Ismail Faruqui for reconsideration and listed the appeals against the impugned judgement for hearing.

On 8 January 2019, CJI Ranjan Gogoi formed a 5-judge bench led by him and consisting of Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, UU Lalit and DY Chandrachud to hear the appeals.

On 10 January 2019, Justice UU Lalit recuses himself from the hearing. Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer replace Justices NV Ramanna and UU Lalit.

On 26 February 2019, the Supreme Court referred the parties to a Court appointed and monitored mediation to explore the possibility of bringing about a permanent solution to the issues raised in the appeals. On 8 March 2019, a panel of mediators comprising of (i) Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, a former Judge of this Court; (ii) Sri Sri Ravi Shankar; and (iii) Mr Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate was constituted. Time granted to the mediators to complete the mediation proceedings was extended on 10 May 2019. Since no settlement had been reached, on 2 August 2019, the hearing of the appeals was directed to commence from 6 August 2019.

On 6 August 2019, the 5-judge bench began daily hearings of appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict in the title suit.

On 16 October 2019, final arguments were concluded in the batch of appeals. The Supreme Court bench reserved its verdict in the title suit.

Final Verdict of the Supreme Court

Bench: CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

Dissent: No dissent.

On 9 November 2019, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court unanimously gave its verdict. It granted entire 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla, possession of land will remain with Central government receiver. The Supreme Court also directed the Central government and UP government to allot 5 acres land to the Muslims at a prominent place in Ayodhya for building mosque.

The Judgement can be summarised as follows:

  • The Court ordered the Government of India to create a trust to build the Ram Mandir temple and form a Board of Trustees within three months. The disputed land will be owned by the Government of India and subsequently transferred to the Trust after its formation.
  • The Court ordered the entire disputed land of area of 2.77 acres to be allocated for the construction of a temple while an alternative piece of land of area of 5 acres be allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque at a suitable place within Ayodhya.
  • The Court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court’s decision, division of the disputed land was incorrect.
  • The Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Masjid and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of law.
  • The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a “structure”, whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.
  • The Court said that Muslim parties, including the Sunni Waqf Board, failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land. It said that the Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama. The Court cited that iron railings set up in 1856–57 separated the inner courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard, and that Hindus were in exclusive possession of the outer courtyard. It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner courtyard of the mosque.
  • The Court ruled that the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara could not be upheld and it had no shebait (person who serves the deity) rights. However, the court ruled that Nirmohi Akhara should be given appropriate representation in the Board of Trustees.
  • The Court rejected the claim made by Shia Waqf Board against the Sunni Waqf Board for the ownership of the Babri Masjid.

Review Petition

On 12 December 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed all the 18 petitions seeking review of the verdict.