The Judgement delivered by
the 5 Judges of SC on Ayodhya Dispute is having
A to Q Portions in 1045 pages. The first part A is running to 29 pages ..
I tried to give excerpts of that portion to understand the history of the
disputed claims as narrated .
PART A
A. Introduction
1. These first appeals
centre around a 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 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.
2. 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.
3. The disputed land forms
part of the village of Kot Rama Chandra or, as it is otherwise called, Ramkot
at 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…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. 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
4. . A suit was instituted
in 1950 before the Civil Judge at Faizabad by a Hindu worshipper, Gopal Singh
Visharad seeking a declaration that according to his religion and custom, he is
entitled to offer prayers at the main Janmabhumi temple near the idols.
5. 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
6. The Uttar Pradesh Sunni
Central Board of Waqf (―Sunni Central Waqf Board‖) and other Muslim residents of
Ayodhya instituted a suit in 1961 for a declaration of their title to the
disputed site. According to them, the old structure was a mosque which was
built on the instructions of Emperor Babur by Mir Baqi who was the Commander of
his forces, following the conquest of the subcontinent by the Mughal Emperor in
the third decade of the sixteenth century. According to them, prayers were
uninterruptedly offered in the mosque until 23 December 1949 when a group of
Hindus desecrated it by placing idols within the precincts of its three-domed
structure with the intent to destroy, damage and defile the Islamic religious
structure. The Sunni Central Waqf Board claims a declaration of title and, if
found necessary, a decree for possession.
7. A suit was instituted
in 1989 by a next friend on behalf of the deity (―Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman‖) and the birth-place of
Lord Ram (―Asthan Shri Ram Janmabhumi‖). The suit is founded on the claim that
the law recognises both the idol and the birth-place as juridical entities.
8. These suits, together
with a separate suit by Hindu worshippers were transferred by the Allahabad
High Court to itself for trial from the civil court at Faizabad. The High Court
rendered a judgment in original proceedings arising out of the four suits and
these appeals arise out of the decision of a Full Bench dated 30 September
2010. The High Court held that the suits filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board
and by Nirmohi Akhara were barred by limitation. Despite having held that those
two suits were barred by time, the High Court held in a split 2:1 verdict that
the Hindu and Muslim parties were joint holders of the disputed premises. Each
of them was held entitled to one third of the disputed property. The Nirmohi
Akhara was granted the remaining one third.
10. The disputed site has
been a flash point of continued conflagration over decades. In 1856-57, riots
broke out between Hindus and Muslims in the vicinity of the structure. The
colonial government attempted to raise a buffer between the two communities to
maintain law and order by set ting up a grill-brick wall having a height of six
or seven feet. This would divide the premises into two parts: the inner portion
which would be used by the Muslim community and the outer portion or courtyard,
which would be used by the Hindu community. The outer courtyard has several
structures of religious significance for the Hindus, such as the Sita Rasoi and
a platform called the Ramchabutra. In 1877, another door was opened on the
northern side of the outer courtyard by the colonial government, which was
given to the Hindus to control and manage. The bifurcation, as the record
shows, did not resolve the conflict and there were numerous attempts by one or
other of the parties to exclude the other.
11. In January 1885,
Mahant Raghubar Das, claiming to be the Mahant of Ram Janmasthan instituted a
suit1 (―Suit of 1885‖)
before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad. The relief which he sought was permission to
build a temple on the Ramchabutra situated in the outer courtyard, measuring
seventeen feet by twenty-one feet. A sketch map was filed with the plaint. 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. The trial judge, however, observed that
there could be no question or doubt regarding the possession and ownership of
the Hindus over the Chabutra. On 18 March 1886, the District Judge dismissed
the appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court2 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. In 1934,
there was yet another conflagration between the two communities. The domed
structure of the mosque was damaged during the incident and was subsequently
repaired at the cost of the colonial government.
12. 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. A First
Information Report (―FIR‖)
was registered in relation to the incident. On 29 December 1949, the Additional
City Magistrate, Faizabad-cumAyodhya issued a preliminary order under Section
145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 18984 (―CrPC 1898‖), treating the situation
to be of an emergent nature. Simultaneously, an attachment order was issued and
Priya Datt Ram, the Chairman of the Municipal Board of Faizabad was appointed
as the receiver of the inner courtyard. On 5 January 1950, the receiver took
charge of the inner courtyard and prepared an inventory of the attached
properties. The Magistrate passed a preliminary order upon recording a
satisfaction that the dispute between the two communities over their claims to
worship and proprietorship over the structure would likely lead to a breach of
peace. The stakeholders were allowed to file their written statements. Under
the Magistrate‘s order, only two or three pujaris were permitted to go inside
the place where the idols were kept, to perform religious ceremonies like bhog
and puja. Members of the general public were restricted from entering and were
only allowed darshan from beyond the grill-brick wall.
13. On 16 January 1950, a
suit was instituted by a Hindu devotee, Gopal Singh Visharad5 , (―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. A declaration was sought to allow the plaintiff to offer prayers in
accordance with the rites and tenets of his religion (―Sanatan Dharm‖) at the ―main Janmabhumi‖, near the idols, within
the inner courtyard, without hindrance. 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 adinterim order, as modified. On 26 May 1955, the
appeal6 against the interim order was dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad.
14. On 5 December 1950,
another suit was instituted by Paramhans Ramchandra Das7 (―Suit 2‖) before the Civil Judge,
Faizabad seeking reliefs similar to those in Suit 1. Suit 2 was subsequently
withdrawn on 18 September 1990
15. On 1 April 1950, a
Court Commissioner was appointed in Suit 1 to prepare a map of the disputed
premises. On 25 June 1950, the Commissioner submitted a report, together with
two site plans of the disputed premises which were numbered as Plan nos 1 and 2
to the Trial Court.
16. On 17 December 1959,
Nirmohi Akhara instituted a suit8 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 by the Magistrate‘s order of
attachment and by the appointment of a receiver under Section 145. A decree was
sought to hand over the management and charge of the temple to the plaintiff in
Suit 3.
17. On 18 December 1961,
the Sunni Central Waqf Board and nine Muslim residents of Ayodhya filed a suit9
(―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. 18. On 6 January 1964, the trial of Suits
1, 3 and 4 was consolidated and Suit 4 was made the leading case
19. 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 issued directions to open the locks and to provide access to devotees for
darshan inside the structure. In a Writ Petition10 filed before the High Court
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.
20. On 1 July 1989, a
Suit11 (―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. 21. 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.
22. 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 notifications dated 7 October 1991 and 10 October 1991 under
Sections 4(1), 6 and 17(4) of the 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.
23. 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.
24. The 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‖)..Simultaneously,
the President of India made a reference to this Court under Article 143 of the
Constitution. The reference was on ―(w)hether 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…‖
25. 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.. 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
26. The recording of oral
evidence before the High Court commenced on 24 July 1996. During the course of
the hearings, the High Court issued directions on 23 October 2002 to the
Archaeological Survey of India (―ASI‖) to carry out a scientific investigation
and have the disputed site surveyed by Ground Penetrating Technology or
Geo-Radiology (―GPR‖).
The GPR report dated 17 February 2003 indicated a variety of ―anomalies‖ which could be associated
with ―ancient and contemporaneous structures‖ such as pillars, foundations, wall slabs
and flooring extending over a large portion of the disputed site. In order to
facilitate a further analysis, the High Court directed the ASI on 5 March 2003
to undertake the excavation of the disputed site. A fourteen-member team was
constituted, and a site plan was prepared indicating the number of trenches to
be laid out and excavated. On 22 August 2003, the ASI submitted its final
report. The High Court heard objections to the report.
27. As one of the judges,
Justice Sudhir Agarwal noted, the High Court had before it 533 exhibits and
depositions of 87 witnesses traversing 13,990 pages. Besides this, counsel
relied on over a thousand reference books in Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Persian,
Turkish, French and English, ranging from subjects as diverse as history,
culture, archaeology and religion…the innumerable archaeological artefacts were
kept in the record room. It received dozens of CDs and other records which the
three judges of the High Court have marshalled.
28. On 30 September 2010,
the Full Bench of the High Court comprising of Justice S U Khan, Justice Sudhir
Agarwal and Justice D V Sharma delivered the judgment, which is in appeal.
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.
Justice S U Khan held
thus: ―Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and
Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in
dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri
Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the
extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.
A preliminary decree to this effect is passed. However, it is further declared
that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in
makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree. It is further
directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which
is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map. It is
further clarified that even though all the three parties are declared to have
one third share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor
adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the
adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portion of the
adjoining land which has been acquired by the Central Government. The parties
are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and
bounds within three months.
Justice Sudhir Agarwal
partly decreed Suits 1 and 5. Suits 3 and 4 were dismissed as being barred by
limitation. The learned judge concluded with the following directions: ―4566…
(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed
structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram
Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the
Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) and shall not be obstructed or interfered
in any manner by the defendants. This area is shown by letters AA BB CC DD in
Appendix 7 to this judgment. (ii) The area within the inner courtyard denoted
by letters B C D L K J H G in Appendix 7 (excluding (i) above) belong to
members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and
Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. It is,
however, made clear that for the purpose of share of plaintiffs, Suit-5 under
this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included.
(iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, (EE FF GG HH in
Appendix 7) Sita Rasoi (MM NN OO PP in Appendix 7) and Bhandar (II JJ KK LL in
Appendix 7) in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara
(defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the
absence of any person with better title. (iv) The open area within the outer
courtyard (A G H J K L E F in Appendix 7) (except that covered by (iii) above)
shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5)
since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both
places.
(iv-a) It is however made
clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3)
of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of
outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by metes and
bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of
different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the
requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of
India. (v) The land which is available with the Government of India acquired
under Ayodhya Act 1993 for providing it to the parties who are successful in
the suit for better enjoyment of the property shall be made available to the
above concerned parties in such manner so that all the three parties may
utilise the area to which they are entitled to, by having separate entry for
egress and ingress of the people without disturbing each others rights. For
this purpose the concerned parties may approach the Government of India who shall
act in accordance with the above directions and also as contained in the
judgement of Apex Court in Dr. Ismail Farooqi (Supra).
30. On 10 August 2015, a
three judge Bench of this Court allowed the Commissioner, Faizabad Division to
replace the old and worn out tarpaulin sheets over the makeshift structure
under which the idols were placed with new sheets of the same size and quality.
31. On 5 December 2017, a
three judge Bench of this 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 this
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.
32. By an administrative
order dated 8 January 2019 made pursuant to the provisions of Order VI Rule 1
of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Chief Justice of India constituted a five
judge Bench to hear the appeals….On 26 February 2019, this 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…This Court by its order dated 18
September 2019 observed that while the hearings will proceed, if any parties
desired to settle the dispute, it was open for them to move the mediators and
place a settlement, if it was arrived at, before this Court. Final arguments
were concluded in the batch of appeals on 16 October 2019…In bringing together
the disputants on a common platform for a free and frank dialogue, the
mediators have performed a function which needs to be commended. We also express
our appreciation of the parties who earnestly made an effort to pursue the
mediation proceedings.
B
No comments:
Post a Comment