NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY,

BHOPAL

COMMON LAW METHOD

DRAFT PROJECT

AYODHYA JUDGMENT: A CRITQUE

SEMESTER-1

Submitted by: Submitted to:

Karman Singh Prof. Ghayur Alam

2020 BA L.L.B(Hons.) 51
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On completion of this Project, it is my present privilege to acknowledge my profound

gratitude and indebtedness towards my teachers for their valuable suggestions and
constructive criticism. Their precious guidance and unrelenting support kept me on the
right track throughout the project. I gratefully acknowledge my deepest sense of
gratitude to Prof. (Dr.) Vijaykumar Director, National Law Institute University, Bhopal
for providing us with the infrastructure and the means to make this project; our
Common Law Method teacher, Prof. Ghayur Alam who provided me this wonderful
opportunity and guided me throughout the project work. I’m also thankful to the library
and computer staffs of the University for helping us find and select books from the
University library.
Finally, I’m thankful to my family members and friends for the affection and
encouragement with which doing this project became a pleasure.

ii
Table of Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.........................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................4

BRIEF TIMELINE.....................................................................................................................4

HISTORICAL PRESPECTIVE.................................................................................................5

Points Made by Parties...............................................................................................................6

Ram Lala................................................................................................................................6

Nirmohi Akhara.....................................................................................................................6

Sunni Waqf Board..................................................................................................................6

THE JUDGMENT.....................................................................................................................7

Implications of The Ayodhya Verdict........................................................................................8

Social Impact..........................................................................................................................8

Political Impact......................................................................................................................9

iii
 INTRODUCTION

The lands of our country have witnessed invasions and dissensions. Yet they have assimilated
into the idea of India everyone who sought their providence, whether they came as
merchants, travellers or as conquerors. The history and culture of this country have been
home to quests for truth, through the material, the political, and the spiritual. This Court is
called upon to fulfil its adjudicatory function where it is claimed that two quests for the truth
impinge on the freedoms of the other or violate the rule of law. Ayodhya, a city located in the
Faizabad district of Uttar Pradesh, which is epically famous for the birth of Hindu divinity
Lord Rama, became the centre of attraction for the infamous religious conflict between Hindu
Community and Muslim Community over demolition of Babari Masjid. The issue revolves
around the fact that natural idols were found inside the Babari mosque situated in Ayodhya,
built at the time of ruling of Mughal leader, Babar. The apprehension that a Lord Rama
temple was demolished to build the Babari mosque lead to a Hindu political rally, which
demolished the Babari Masjid and consequently resulted in riots killing 2000 people across
India on 06 December 1992My discussion illustrates how the enemies of religious pluralism
are increasingly and successfully waging their war not simply in opposition to the rights of
religious minorities, but in and through the legal discourse of secularism, and quite
specifically, the right to freedom of religion. In the mammoth decision of the Allahabad High
Court, the right to freedom of religion became the court’s focus.
LITERATURE REVIEW

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
HYPOYHESIS
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
OBJECTIVES

iv
 BRIEF TIMELINE
;
In the year 1949, idols of Lord Rama appear inside the Babri Masjid. The then Government
of India decides to lock the gates of the premises;
1950 - Lawsuit filed by Hindu community seeking permission for Hindus to pray inside the
Masjid. Court allowed Hindus to pray inside but locked the inner courtyard;
1959 - Nirmohi Akhara files case demanding possession of the Masjid;
1961 - Sunni Waqf Board files lawsuit demanding the removal of the idols from mosque
premises;
1984 - Vishwa Hindu Parishad (“VHP”) initiates a campaign to gather public support for
Hindu access to the Babri Masjid;
1986 - Faizabad court orders gates to be opened for Hindus to offer prayers, Babri Mosque
Action Committee (“BMAC”) formed to settle the issue;
1989 - Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allows VHP to perform ground breaking ceremony close
to the disputed site;
1990 - Senior Bhartiya Janta Party (“BJP”) leader L.K. Advani Rath Yatra towards Ayodhya
stopped and he's arrested in Samastipur, Bihar;
1992 - Babri Masjid demolished by BJP, VHP and RSS Kar Sevaks, makeshift temple
constructed; Communal riots erupt across the country, killing 2,000 people, PV Narasimha
Rao-led Congress government sets up a commission of enquiry under Justice M.S. Liberhan;
2003 - Allahabad high court asks Archaeological Survey of India (“ASI”) to excavate the
disputed site, ASI submits report saying findings indicated the presence of a tenth century
temple beneath the mosque, All India Muslim Personal Law Board said it will challenge the
ASI report;
2010 - Allahabad high court rules for a three-way division of the disputed land; Land allotted
to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Rama Lalla represented by the Hindu Mahasabha;
2016 - Supreme Court permits Subramanian Swamy to intervene in pending matters, Swamy
proposes Ram temple to be built at the disputed site, while the mosque be constructed on the
other side of Sarayu river;
2017 - Supreme Court pushes for an amicable solution through negotiations between
concerned parties.
 HISTORICAL PRESPECTIVE
The dispute between two religious communities both of whom claim ownership over a piece
of land admeasuring 1500 square yards in the town of Ayodhya. The disputed property is of
immense significance to Hindus and Muslims. The Hindu community claims it as the
birthplace of Lord Ram, an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. The Muslim community claims it as
the site of the historic Babri Masjid built by the first Mughal Emperor, Babur. The events
associated with the dispute have spanned the Mughal empire, colonial rule and the present
constitutional regime. Constitutional values form the cornerstone of this nation and have
facilitated the lawful resolution of the present title dispute through forty-one days of hearings
before this Court. The dispute in these appeals arises out of four regular suits which were
instituted between 1950 and 1989. The disputed land forms part of the village named Kot
Rama Chandra or, as it is otherwise called, Ramkot eeat Ayodhya, in Pargana Haveli Avadh,
of Tehsil Sadar in the District of Faizabad. An old structure of a mosque existed at the site
until 6 December 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

Points Made by Parties

Ram Lala
The site has religious significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that Lord Ram
was born at the disputed site. For this reason, the Hindus refer to the disputed site as Ram
Janmabhoomi or Ram Janmasthan (i.e. birth-place of Lord Ram). The Hindus assert that there
existed at the disputed site an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished
upon the conquest of the Indian sub-continent by Mughal Emperor Babur.

Nirmohi Akhara
The Nirmohi Akhara represents a religious sect amongst the
Hindus, known as the Ramanandi Bairagis. The Nirmohis claim that they were, at all material
times, in charge and management of the structure at the disputed site which according to them
was a temple until 29 December 1949, on which date an attachment was ordered under
Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. In effect, they claim as shebaits in

2
service of the deity, managing its affairs and receiving offerings from devotees. Theirs is a
Suit of 1959 for the management and charge of ‗the temple

Sunni Waqf Board

The Sunni Waqf Board, meanwhile, will be unrelenting in its claim over the entire 2.77 acres
of disputed land, completely rejecting claims of the Nirmohi Akhara and Ramjanmabhoomi
Nyas. This land was equally divided between the three parties by the Allahabad High Court
in 2010. The Waqf board will be putting forward a view that since a mosque existed at the
site and was demolished, there is no question of giving up claim over the entire land. While
this stance is likely to lead to a further deadlock, people privy to the case have said that the
Sunni Waqf Board will not relinquish its claims over the entire piece of land unless ordered
by the country’s highest court. It is not clear yet whether the Sunni Waqf board will be
amenable to building a mosque alongside a temple at the disputed site – a proposal which has
been completely rejected by the Nirmohi Akhara and VHP backed organisations. Lawyers in
the case said that ceding to any demand for completely relinquishing claim over the land
would amount to surrender by the Muslim community. On the other hand, the Muslims
contended that the mosque was built by or at the behest of Babur on vacant land. Though the
significance of the site for the Hindus is not denied, it is the case of the Muslims that there
exists no proprietary claim of the Hindus over the disputed property.

THE JUDGMENT

The Lucknow bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dealt with one of the most critical
religious and constitutional cases. With the order that runs into over 8,000 pages, HC has said
that the portion below the central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and other Gods
are placed in a makeshift temple, belongs to Hindus. All three judges agreed that the portion
under the central dome should be allotted to Hindus. Justice S.U. Khan dissented with the
opinions of Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D.V. Sharma that that the disputed structure
was a mosque and that a temple was demolished to build a mosque. Justice SU Khan held
that no temple was demolished for constructing the mosque at the disputed structure. He said

3
the mosque was constructed under orders of Babar over the ruins of temples lying in that state
for a very long time.

The judgment observed that the idols were

placed beneath the central dome early on December 23, 1949. The court dismissed two major
claims to the land - one filed in 1989 on behalf Ram Lalla, or the infant Lord Ram, and the
second by the Sunni Waqf Board filed in 1961. The Sunni Waqf Board has said it does not
agree with today's judgment and will appeal in the Supreme Court against it. The chairman
of the Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Trust, Nritya Gopal Das, too said they would challenge the
decision to provide one-third of the disputed land to the Sunni Waqf Board in the Supreme
Court. The dispute before the court was whether the 2.7 acres of disputed land on which the
Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni
Central Waqf Board or to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha. It has been a protracted legal
battle, and people across the country have spoken in one voice on the need to maintain peace
and harmony. In 2017, The Supreme Court has constituted a three-judge bench headed by
Justice Dipak Misra to hear a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad high court verdict
in the Ayodhya land dispute case from August 11. The bench, whose other members are
Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, would adjudicate the dispute over ownership of
Ram temple-Babri masjid land.

On July 21, a bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar

had said that it would soon take a decision to list the matter for early hearing. The court’s
remark had come on a plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy who sought urgent listing and
hearing of the matter. Swamy had said that the main appeals against the Allahabad high court
order are pending for the last seven years in the apex court and these required urgent hearing.
He had also said that a separate petition had earlier been filed by him seeking enforcement of
his right to worship without much hassle at the site.

Implications of The Ayodhya Verdict

Social Impact
One way of watching the welcome development of a harmonious closure to the title suit is
that communities – particularly the minority community – are weary of the long-drawn

4
dispute and wish to maneuver on. This, indeed, would be the foremost crucial upshot of the
judgment from the purpose of view of social harmony, if such indeed is that the denouement.
However, this could require reaching resolute the Muslim leadership by Hindu religious and
cultural institutions. And, for this, there has to be an assurance that no other disputes are
politically raked up in future. That the Hindu institutions got Ram Janmabhoomi – perceived
by millions as Lord Ram’s place of birth – should make them more accommodative to
minority concerns. which will well ease out the tensions of the past and make the decision
indeed pave the thanks to greater trust and harmony. However, the moot question is whether
or not this may be guaranteed. Even some years from now, one statement of a prominent
Hindu politician or leader regarding another disputed site can create an environment of inter-
community distrust. and that we know that Mathura and Kashi (Varanasi) have within the
past been talked about as two other disputed sites, while raking them up legally may now not
be a straightforward option, after the apex court cited the Places of Worship Act, 1991,
explicitly, as academic Faizan Mustafa has brought go into a chunk within the Hindu.
However, even political demands on other sites can disturb the harmony. It is common
knowledge that the highest courts in any democracy are often called upon to decide issues
which have political importance and they cannot abdicate their duty to record the legal
reasoning for or against a particular claim. Our Supreme Court has recorded its reasoning and
it is a plausible legal view. One way of looking at the welcome development of a harmonious
closure to the title suit is that communities – particularly the minority community – are weary
of the long-drawn dispute and want to move on. This, indeed, would be the most crucial
upshot of the judgment from the point of view of social harmony, if such indeed is the
denouement. However, this would require reaching out to the Muslim leadership by Hindu
religious and cultural institutions. And, for this, there needs to be an assurance that no other
disputes will be politically raked up in future. That the Hindu institutions got Ram
Janmabhoomi – perceived by millions as Lord Ram’s place of birth – should make them
more accommodative to minority concerns. That may well ease out the tensions of the past
and make the verdict indeed pave the way to greater trust and harmony. However, the moot
question is whether this can be guaranteed. Even a few years from now, one statement of a
prominent Hindu politician or spiritual leader regarding another disputed site can create an
atmosphere of inter-community distrust. And we know that Mathura and Kashi (Varanasi)
have in the past been talked about as two other disputed sites, even though raking them up
legally may no longer be an easy option, after the apex court cited the Places of Worship Act,

5
1991, explicitly, as academic Faizan Mustafa has brought out in a piece in The Hindu.
However, even political demands on other sites can disturb the harmony.

Political Impact

In some propaganda material, there is mention of several other disputed sites Hindu
organisations claim. There should be a political assurance that the settlement of this dispute
will usher in an era where further disputes will not be raked up in the public sphere. If this
can indeed be the last such dispute to be raked up politically, at least the harmony the
Supreme Court’s judgment has itself found to be necessary can come closer to becoming a
reality. Large sections of Muslim opinion have accepted the judgment as a fait accompli.
They seem to think that there is no other way out. Hindu assurances that the future would be
dispute-free can be a way of making the Muslim leadership’s acceptance of the verdict a
starting point for a harmonious future. Yet, if some Hindu leaders begin to think that this is
an institutional acceptance of disputes being won by the majority – and that Muslims are not
in a position to voice their reservations – the “harmony” isn’t actually going to be a real
harmony but the coming into being of power relations where the majority has its way. If so,
this would militate against Freedom of Religion and the guarantee for the protection of the
cultural rights of the minorities in the Indian constitution.