ABC of “AYODHYA VERDICT”

In M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs Vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors (2019) dated 09.11.2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the Ayodhya-Babri Masjis dispute to the best of its level in consonance with the powers inherent in the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The referred case is also known as the “Ayodhya-Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid Case”. He referred judgment is one of the best examples of “Judicial Creativity”.

Historically, 5 suits were instituted concerning the disputed land since 1950. However, one suit was dismissed and the SC verdict covers the other 4 suits.

In the referred case at SC, the judgment dated 30/09/2010 of Allahabad High Court was challenged that was set aside by the SC order dated 09/11/2019. The Allahabad High Court Hs mandated to divide the core dispute area of 1487 Square yards, including the disputed 2.77 acres of plot, into three-equal parts and allotted one part each to Ram Lalla (the area under the central dome of demolished mosque), Nirmohi Akhara (outer courtyard including Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi) and rest to Sunni Waqf Board.

The salient features of the matter in dispute, the Bench and the Judgment are as under—

• The matter was related to dispute as to title of land over which Ram Temple was built in the 10^th Century. That was later on superseded by a mosque during the reign of Moghul emperor Babur.
• The Judgment was given by the Constitutional Bench that consists of minimum five judges.
• All the five-judges were unanimous in the judgment i.e. there was no dissenting
• The Ayodhya judgment has 17 Chapters from “A” to “Q”.
• The Judgment is of 929 pages with addenda of 116 pages, a new concept in the SC’s history.

The said judgment innovated 3 styles —

• A verdict always bears the name of the author but the referred judgment did not.
• The author of the judgment alone reads it in the open court, but the referred judgment was read out by the CJI Ranjan Gogoi.
• The main judgment is not accompanied by an addenda, but the referred judgment has addenda.

Whether Ram Lalla Virajman a legal entity?

Under the Indian Law, a deity is an individual entity and like a firm or a trust can contest its own case. The deity Ram Lalla Virajman is a perpetual minor and was represented through next friend in the referred suit.

The Court observed as under—

• The damage, desecration and demolition of Babri masjid are illegal acts.

• The Hindus and Muslims had a competing right over the disputed site, but Hindu showed better evidence of their continuous worship at the disputed structure for centuries.

The Court held as under—

• Granted entire 2.77 acre disputed land to deity “Ram Lalla Virajman”.

• Directed Centre to appoint trust in three months to manager construction of Temple.

• The Centre-State to provide alternate land of 5 acre to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of mosque.

Nirmohi’s claim Time-barred—

The Nirmohi Akhara has no locus to claim over the disputed land as the period of limitation under Article 120 of the Limitation Act is 6 years and accordingly, Nirmohi claim was time-barred. The SC further held that, however, it may give its appropriate representation to the Trust to be constituted by the Central Govt.

Whether judgment would be precedence for other Mosques of Pre-independence era? –

The judgment can not be quoted as precedence for other several mosques of the pre-independence era. Because there has been a central legislation i.e.  Religious Places (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 which mandates, inter alia, for maintenance of status quo on the character of the disputed sites as it existed in 1947 and only Ram-Jamn Bhoomi-Babri Masjid was excluded from the ambit of this law.  

________________________________

Complied by teal LegalMines.