The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment: Key Takeaways
Yesterday the Hon. Supreme court delivered a land mark 1045 page verdict ending decades long acrimonious dispute on Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Masjid issue. What i find particularly interesting is the fact that
The judgement also brings into focus the point made by a Supreme Court judge Mr Ganguly who said 'What would have been the outcome of the Supreme court had Babri Masjid not been demolished'?. What stops people from demolishing other disputed structures like Kashi Mathura, Gyanvapi mosque and then creating a fait accompli. The Supreme Court Judges have addressed this kind of scenario very succinctly
They invoke the places of Worship act of 1991 that was enacted under the Narasimha Rao regime when Advani was doing the rathyatra. This particular act provides status quo on all religious places as they existed during 1947 and provide necessary protection in their as is status. Section 4 of this act places the responsibility of the state government to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they existed in 1947. Any of the court proceedings with respect to any of these places will cease to exist and be closed as per the current Ayodhya SC verdict. Supreme Court order makes an exception under section 5 of this act in respect of Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid issue as it was an ongoing case
In a visionary and smart move The court has further embedded the 1991Act in in the basic structure of the constitution so as to prevent reenactment or changes to the law. This protects the Act from any amendments in future. It quotes the Bommai Vs Union of India judgement and the definition of secularism in the basic structure of constitution to buttress this move.
A picture i took earlier this week brought this whole issue to fruition in my mind
Originally addressed in a trial court, the case escalated to the Allahabad High Court, which controversially divided the land equally among three parties: Ram Lalla (the idol representing infant Lord Rama), Nirmohi Akhara (a Hindu religious group), and the Sunni Waqf Board (a Muslim organization). The High Court's decision, based partly on archaeological evidence suggesting a Hindu temple beneath the Babri Mosque, was challenged in the Supreme Court.
From August to October 2019, the Supreme Court conducted 40 days of consecutive hearings, marked by intense debates and attempts at mediation. This period became the second-longest hearing in Indian legal history, following the landmark Keshvananda Bharti case.
On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the entire disputed land should be given to a trust for the construction of a Ram temple. The judgment clarified that Ram Lalla was a juristic person, but the land itself, Ram Janma Bhoomi, was not. The court found that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and acknowledged the Hindu belief that Lord Ram was born at the site. However, it emphasized that land titles cannot be decided solely on faith. The Sunni Waqf Board was denied adverse possession claims but was granted an alternative 5-acre site to build a mosque.
The verdict, spanning 1045 pages, was significant for not revealing the individual authorship of the judges, including a separate but concurring opinion on whether the disputed structure was Lord Ram's birthplace. The decision also dismissed a related claim by the Shia Waqf Board.
In essence, the Supreme Court's judgment attempted to balance historical, religious, and legal aspects of the dispute, marking a pivotal moment in India's history of secularism and religious freedom.
- The court makes a distinction between the Structure (mosque) & the Land and goes with the logic that the title belongs to the land and Hindus had a better claim to it.
- It concluded that even though the mosque belonged to the Muslims it was not Sui Generis (it was built over another structure). It went by ASI report that the earlier structure was not a Islamic one but a Hindu like.
- The court found no evidence of Muslims having prayed there (at the disputed structure) between 1528 - 1856 whereas Hindus have been going there to pray
- It goes to the period before 1528 that is around the 12th Century when a temple was built here and takes into account the entire period upto date. In terms of length of occupation & extent of use, it concludes that Hindus have a better claim on it than Muslims
Implications for India's Religious Harmony and Legal Framework
The judgement also brings into focus the point made by a Supreme Court judge Mr Ganguly who said 'What would have been the outcome of the Supreme court had Babri Masjid not been demolished'?. What stops people from demolishing other disputed structures like Kashi Mathura, Gyanvapi mosque and then creating a fait accompli. The Supreme Court Judges have addressed this kind of scenario very succinctly
They invoke the places of Worship act of 1991 that was enacted under the Narasimha Rao regime when Advani was doing the rathyatra. This particular act provides status quo on all religious places as they existed during 1947 and provide necessary protection in their as is status. Section 4 of this act places the responsibility of the state government to preserve the religious character of all places of worship as they existed in 1947. Any of the court proceedings with respect to any of these places will cease to exist and be closed as per the current Ayodhya SC verdict. Supreme Court order makes an exception under section 5 of this act in respect of Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjid issue as it was an ongoing case
In a visionary and smart move The court has further embedded the 1991Act in in the basic structure of the constitution so as to prevent reenactment or changes to the law. This protects the Act from any amendments in future. It quotes the Bommai Vs Union of India judgement and the definition of secularism in the basic structure of constitution to buttress this move.
A picture i took earlier this week brought this whole issue to fruition in my mind
This was at S.J Industries (a Tiles showroom) at Honaga Industrial Area in Belgaum (Karnataka, India).
All our Gods seem inherently at peace with each other here, they occupy the same rack before being picked up by customers to various places of worship. A 786 inscribed tile sits next to that of Sri Hanuman ji. Apparently there is nobody disputing it!
The Ayodhya verdict, delivered by a five-judge bench of India's Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, brought an end to a centuries-old dispute over a 2.77-acre plot in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. This land, claimed by both Hindus and Muslims, has been a focal point of religious, legal, and historical debates.Unpacking the Historical Context of the Ayodhya Dispute
Originally addressed in a trial court, the case escalated to the Allahabad High Court, which controversially divided the land equally among three parties: Ram Lalla (the idol representing infant Lord Rama), Nirmohi Akhara (a Hindu religious group), and the Sunni Waqf Board (a Muslim organization). The High Court's decision, based partly on archaeological evidence suggesting a Hindu temple beneath the Babri Mosque, was challenged in the Supreme Court.
From August to October 2019, the Supreme Court conducted 40 days of consecutive hearings, marked by intense debates and attempts at mediation. This period became the second-longest hearing in Indian legal history, following the landmark Keshvananda Bharti case.
On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the entire disputed land should be given to a trust for the construction of a Ram temple. The judgment clarified that Ram Lalla was a juristic person, but the land itself, Ram Janma Bhoomi, was not. The court found that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and acknowledged the Hindu belief that Lord Ram was born at the site. However, it emphasized that land titles cannot be decided solely on faith. The Sunni Waqf Board was denied adverse possession claims but was granted an alternative 5-acre site to build a mosque.
The verdict, spanning 1045 pages, was significant for not revealing the individual authorship of the judges, including a separate but concurring opinion on whether the disputed structure was Lord Ram's birthplace. The decision also dismissed a related claim by the Shia Waqf Board.
In essence, the Supreme Court's judgment attempted to balance historical, religious, and legal aspects of the dispute, marking a pivotal moment in India's history of secularism and religious freedom.
The Ayodhya Legal Verdict - Deconstructing the main Legal Points
The Ayodhya Verdict deconstructed into its main legal points is complex, involving numerous legal principles and precedents. Here's a simplified overview:- Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993: The court ruled that Hindus have a possessory title to the outer courtyard of the disputed site due to long and unimpeded worship. The Central Government was directed to form a trust or similar body to manage the land.
- Juristic Personhood of Deities: The idol of Rama Lalla (Infant Lord Rama) is considered a juristic person, meaning it has legal standing. However, the site itself, Ram Janmbhoomi, is not a juristic person.
- Shebait (Caretaker) Rights: The court addressed the rights and responsibilities of a de facto shebait, someone who acts as a caretaker for a deity. Nirmohi Akhara, a religious group, was not recognized as the shebait for the inner courtyard.
- Limitation Act and Article 142: The court discussed the concept of dispossession and its legal implications. Nirmohi Akhara's suit was deemed not maintainable under Article 142 due to issues with the timing of their claim.
- Continuing Wrong under Limitation Act: The court distinguished between the source and effect of a legal injury, ruling that ongoing effects of an injury do not constitute a continuing wrong.
- Declaration of Title: The court held that a formal request for possession is not required when seeking a declaration of title over a property.
- Criminal Procedure Code-Section 145: Proceedings under this section do not determine the title or possession rights of disputed land.
- Mosque Validity under Islamic Law: The court refused to interpret religious doctrine, focusing instead on the faith and belief of worshippers.
- Places of Worship Act 1991: The court upheld the Act, emphasizing its role in maintaining secular values in India.
- Juristic Personality: Legal personality is distinct from human nature and is recognized by the law for entities like idols.
- Section 13 of the CPC 1882-Resjudicata: The court applied principles of res judicata, ruling that previous judgments on similar issues are binding.
- Evidence Act-Expert Evidence: The court evaluated the Archaeological Survey of India's report, emphasizing that expert opinion must be carefully considered but is not conclusive.
- Evidence Act-Section 81: The genuineness of official government documents was presumed under this section.
- The Limitation Act 1908-Article 47: This provision was deemed inapplicable in this case due to the absence of an order regarding possession under Section 145.
- Legal Consequences of Past Regimes: The court stated that it cannot enforce rights or remedies for actions or injuries under previous sovereigns without their recognition.
- Article 142 of the Constitution: The court discussed its power to apply principles of justice, equity, and good conscience in cases where the law is silent.
- 'Complete Justice' Concept: The court emphasized its role in achieving equitable and just outcomes, even when the law is not explicit.
- Adverse Possession: The court discussed the criteria for claiming adverse possession, notably peaceful, open, and continuous possession.
- Doctrine of the Lost Grant: The court explained this doctrine, which presumes a valid grant in cases of long, uninterrupted, and peaceful enjoyment of a right.
- Evidence Act Section 110: This section covers the presumption of title based on possession.
- Final Holding: The court found the High Court's three-way land division legally unsustainable. It directed the central government to form a trust to manage the land, hand over a suitable plot for mosque construction to the Sunni Waqf Board, and ensure the right to worship at the disputed site.
