Case Analysis: Babri Masjid-Ayodhya Land Dispute Case
This dispute was started over a long period of time between the two religious communities. There were three important years:
1528: Babri Masjid was constructed
1949: Sri Ram’s idol was placed
1992: Demolition of Babri Masjid
Before independence, Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Baqi, commander of Babar. According to the beliefs of the Hindus, this mosque was built by demolishing Lord Ram’s temple. Because of this, the first riots happened between the Hindus and the Muslims from 1853 to 1859. Then the British Government divided this area into two parts: the outside portion of the area will be used by the Hindus, and the inside part will be used by the Muslims. This matter was first brought to the court in 1885 by Mahant Raghubir Das, who demanded a building on the outer portion for worship.
After independence
On December 23, 1949, some unknown person or persons placed Lord Ram’s idol inside the mosque. The situation was out of hand. To maintain peace and tranquility, the state government imposed a ban on that area. To make this obsolete, many civil cases were filed. The most important cases were filed by Mahant Ram Chandra in 1950, Nirmohi Akhara in 1959, the Sunni Waqf Board in 1961, and the Ram Lalla Virajman Committee in 1989. In the meantime, in 1986, the Faizabad Court granted permission to the Hindus for worship. The situation was out of control day by day. So in 1991, the UP government took control of the disputed area. On December 6, 1992, a huge number of karsewaks were assembled near the disputed area and demolished the Babri Masjid. After that, riots started in the whole nation. On December 16, 1992, the Liberhan Committee was made to submit a report on the demolition of Babri Masjid. In 2002, the BJP came into the Central Government. The then Prime Minister Sri Atal Bihari Bajpayee created Ayodhya Bibhag, whose main object was to reconcile Hindus and Muslims. In April 2002, a three-judge bench was constituted at Allahabad High Court with Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan, and Justice Dharam Veer Sharma. The Court directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to submit a report after digging and examining the disputed land. According to an ASI report from around the 12th century, a temple was situated on that land, and a masjid was built in that area in 1528. After examining all the reports and witnesses, the Allahabad High Court delivered a historical judgment on September 30, 2010. The Court divided the disputed land into three parts. Where Lord Ram’s idol was placed, that area was granted to the Ram Lalla Virajman Committee; the second part, Sita Rasoi, Bhandhara, and Ram Chabutra, was given to the Nirmohi Akhara; and the remaining third part was given to the Sunni Waqf Board. The Supreme Court put a stay on the decision of the Allahabad High Court on May 9, 2011. Till 2017, 32 appeals were received by the Supreme Court to revoke the decision of the Allahabad High Court. In 2019, a five-judge bench was constituted with Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer by the Supreme Court for hearing of this case. On March 8, 2019, the Supreme Court was directed to settle this dispute through the mediation panel regulated by the Court. The mediation panel submitted the final report in May 2019. After receiving the report, a 40-day hearing went on from August 6th to October 14th in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reserved the judgment after the hearing and ordered the parties to submit any other alternative relief that they needed.
Arguments of the three Parties
Nirmohi Akhara, represented by Sushil Jain, demanded possession of the inner courtyard. The Sunni Waqf Board, represented by Rajiv Dhavan, stated that on December 6, 1992, there was a mosque in that area, and this fact was only to be considered. The placing of Lord Ram’s idol was an illegal act, and with this illegal fact, no other parties must get the benefits. The Sunni Waqf Board agreed that Ram Chabutara was the birth place of Lord Ram, and the Hindus may worship on the outer side, but the inner portion must be secure for the Muslims only. Ram Lalla Virajman was represented by C. S. Vaidyanathan, who strongly opposed it and said that Lord Ram’s temple existed in this place from the beginning. The Babri Masjid was built by demolishing the Ram Temple. Since 1949, when the idol of Lord Ram was placed in the area, it has been in the possession of the Ram Lalla Virajman Committee.
Judgement
After hearing the arguments and examining all the reports, the Supreme Court said that only based on the reports of ASI or based on the people’s beliefs, ownership of the land can be decided. The title of the land is decided based on legal principles and evidence. The Supreme Court also said that, as the majority of the case is based on historical facts and figures, the evidence shows that there was a Masjid on the disputed land, but still, the Hindus were never stopped worshiping their god in the outer portion of the land from 1857, by which their control was established. But since December 23, 1949, when Lord Ram’s idol was placed, the Muslims have been deprived of worship; hence, their right to worship has been curtailed. The Supreme Court also said that the judgment of the Allahabad High Court was unsustainable.
The Supreme Court made the final decision by using Article 142 of the Indian Constitution and said that the land of Babri Masjid, which is 2.77 acres of land, will go to the Ram Lalla Virajman Committee, and the Central Government or the state government must provide 5 acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board. Both parties will receive the allotted land on the same day.
For regular legal updates, visit at https://www.juscuriam.com
Youtube facebook whatsapp web weather translate google amazon gmail google translate Instagram cricbuzz traductor Hotmail restaurants satta king tiempo twitter googel maps Yandex Sarkari result clima hotels fb yahoo maps chatgpt yahoo mail weather tomorrow Netflix roblox nba wordle tradutor livescore premier league ibomma speed test canva pintrest outlook Instagram login omegle flipkart myntra paypal paytm Alibaba ebay lottery sambad linkedin tiktok shein bbc news real madrid gmail login Walmart ikea cricket snaptik flashscore English to hindi twitch google scholar Barcelona Sarkari Naukri matrimonial shadi lgbtq third gender woman children Advocate barrister vakil supreme court high court commissioner exams ll.b ll.m ugc net law ph.d. m.b.a. graduation degree certificate school additional session judge civil judge justice jurists crime criminology punishment capital sentence death warrant fine constitution of india criminal procedure code civil procedure code evidence act sale of goods act arbitration act all india bar exam lower judiciary higher judiciary additional district attorney contract act amendment act u.s. constitution Canada p r section article schedule judgment vacancy post Porsche louis Vuitton chanel Gucci Hermes dior cartier rolex titan tiffany & co Ferrari estee lauder coach lancome burberry prada omega yves saint Laurent Lamborghini ray-ban Armani Moncler tata reliance Givenchy celine Bentley tag Heuer sk-II can cleef & arpels bulgari Shangri-la lao feng xiang dabur baidyanath cipla birla monte carlo loewe rolls-royce bottega-veneta jaege-leCoulture Maserati valentino dolce & gabbana Salvatore Ferragamo sulwhasso tom ford Maruti Suzuki Hyundai kia intercontinental Tissot aston martin ysl beauty fendi Versace kenzo la mer longines gold price sensex human rights pollution