‘Structure beneath Masjid was of 12th century Hindu religious origin’
NEW DELHI, Nov 9:
Settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the Supreme Court in a historic verdict today backed the construction of a Ram temple by a Government trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya, and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for a mosque in the Hindu holy town.
Click here to watch video
Delivering a unanimous verdict on a case that has long polarised the country and frayed the secular tapestry of Indian society, a five-Judge Bench of the Apex Court headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the site was undisputed, and he is symbolically the owner of the land. Justice Gogoi is due to retire on November 17.
Yet, it is also clear that the destruction of the 16th century three-domed structure by Hindu kar sevaks, who want to build a Ram temple there, was a wrong that “must be remedied,” the ruling said.
The judgement said it is not concerned with faith and belief, and instead treated the case as a title dispute over land between three parties — the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu group, and the symbolic Lord Rama designated as Ram Lalla Virajman.
The judgement runs into 1,045 pages.
The dispute over the site of Babri Masjid, a three-domed mosque built by or at the behest of Mughul emperor Babur, dates back centuries with Hindus contending that the invading Muslim armies had razed an existing Ram temple to erect the mosque. However, it turned into a legal dispute in 1885 when a mahant went to court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the mosque. The plea was dismissed. In December 1949, unidentified miscreants spirited an idol of Lord Ram into the mosque. The structure was destroyed by a large mob of kar sevaks on December 6, 1992.
The demolition triggered nationwide Hindu-Muslim riots, more so in north India and Mumbai, which left many hundreds dead. Subsequently, Muslim extremists angered by the demolition and the riots, carried out a series of bombings in Mumbai on March 12, 1993, which left hundreds dead.
“The dispute is over immovable property. The court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence,” the judgement said, delivered at the end of a marathon 40-day hearing– the second longest in the history of Apex Court.
“The fact that there lay a temple beneath the destroyed structure has been established by the Archaeological Survey of India(ASI) and the underlying structure was not an Islamic structure.”
“On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard” has continued unimpeded even before 1857 when the British annexed Oudh region. “The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession” of the mosque before 1857, it said. “The faith of the Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the demolished structure is undisputed.”
The court also went on to say that the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied.
“Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law.”
To remedy that wrong, the court asked the Centre to allot a five-acre plot in a “prominent” location in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh for constructing a new mosque. The disputed 2.77-acre plot will for now remain with a Central Government receiver, who will hand it over to a government-created trust that must be set up within three months. The trust will be tasked with the construction of the temple.
The verdict in the politically-sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case was one of the most important and most anticipated judgements in India’s history.
The Apex Court bench that also comprised Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer said possession of the disputed 2.77 acre land rights will be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla.
The verdict was pronounced on 14 appeals filed in the Apex Court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and ‘Ram Lalla’.
The bench said the High Court wrongly decided the title suit by resorting to partitioning of the disputed land in three parts.
“The disputed site was Government land in the revenue records,” the court said.
As Justice Gogoi read out the operative part of the verdict for 45 minutes, people belonging to both Hindu and Muslim communities in Ayodhya sat glued before Television sets, while the tech-savvy youth kept a tab on their mobiles phones.
Relief appeared to be the overwhelming emotion in Ayodhya as its residents said the verdict has heralded a new dawn and brought closure to a lingering dispute.
“The judgement has ended the uncertainity on how the dispute would be settled,” said. Anand Kumar, a resident. At some places, people chanted “Jai Shri Ram” and burst crackers.
The Supreme Court also held that ASI findings on the excavation work done underneath the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site at Ayodhya indicated an “underlying structure of Hindu religious origin dating to twelfth century AD”.
The Archaeological Survey of India was entrusted the job of excavation by the Allahabad High Court on October 23, 2002 to carry out a scientific investigation at the disputed site.
A 5-Judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi held that the layered excavation also revealed the existence of a circular shrine together with a ‘makara pranala’, indicative of Hindu worship dating back to the eighth to tenth century.
“On a preponderance of probabilities, the archaeological findings on the nature of the underlying structure indicate it to be of Hindu religious origin, dating to twelfth century AD,” said the bench.
It said that ASI findings also reveal that the mosque in dispute was constructed upon the foundation of the pre-existing structure.
“The construction of the mosque has taken place in such a manner as to obviate an independent foundation by utilising the walls of the pre-existing structure,” the top court held.
It said that the final report of the ASI indicates that the finds in the area of excavation reveal significant traces of successive civilisations, commencing with the age of the ‘North Black Polished Ware’ traceable to the second century BC.
“The excavation by the ASI has revealed the existence of a pre-existing underlying structure dating back to the twelfth century. The structure has large dimensions, evident from the fact that there were 85 pillar bases comprised in 17 rows each of five pillar bases,” the court said.
The top court, after interpreting the archaeological evidence on record, said that the underlying structure which provided the foundations of the mosque together with its architectural features and recoveries are suggestive of a Hindu religious origin comparable to temple excavations in the region and pertaining to the era.
It said a reasonable inference can be drawn on the basis of the standard of proof which governs civil trials that the foundation of the mosque is based on the walls of a large pre-existing structure which dates back to the twelfth century.
Though ASI report has found the existence of ruins of a pre-existing structure, the report does not provide the reason for the destruction of the pre-existing structure and whether the earlier structure was demolished for the purpose of the construction of the mosque, the top court said.
It said that since the ASI report dates the underlying structure to the twelfth century, there is a time gap of about four centuries between the date of the underlying structure and the construction of the mosque.
“No evidence is available to explain what transpired in the course of the intervening period of nearly four centuries,” it said.
The top court said that the ASI report does not conclude that the remnants of the pre-existing structure were used for the purpose of constructing the mosque (apart from the construction of the mosque on the foundation of the erstwhile structure).
“The pillars that were used in the construction of the mosque were black Kasauti stone pillars. ASI has found no evidence to show that these Kasauti pillars are relatable to the underlying pillar bases found during the course of excavation in the structure below the mosque,” it said.
The court said no evidence is available in a case of this antiquity — on the cause of destruction of the underlying structure and whether the pre-existing structure was demolished for the construction of the mosque.
“Title to the land must be decided on settled legal principles and applying evidentiary standards which govern a civil trial,” it said.
The top court also rejected the objections of Muslim parties that archaeology is a branch of knowledge in the social sciences, which is not exact and is inherently subjective.
“Archaeology as a science draws on multi-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary approaches. In considering the nature of archaeological evidence, it is important to remember that archaeology as a branch of knowledge draws sustenance from the science of learning, the wisdom of experience and the vision which underlies the process of interpretation,” it said, adding that it is not a weakness but a strength as it combines both science and Arts.
It also rejected the defence of Muslim parties that the pre-existing structure had an Islamic origin and it was an ‘Idgah’ or ‘Kanati Masjid’ and said that during excavation ASI has founded two parallel walls which indicates that it was not Idgah and the underlying structure was not of Islamic origin. (PTI)
No place for bitterness: PM
India’s credo of unity in diversity was visible in its totality after the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute as all sections of the society accepted it with an open heart, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said today, urging people to shun bitterness and negativity for the sake of a new India.
Addressing the nation hours after the top court gave its judgment, Modi said the way each section of the society welcomed the verdict reflects India’s ancient traditions of amity and harmony.
He said India’s credo of unity in diversity is today visible in its totality.
He also expressed happiness that the five-judge bench of the top court was unanimous in its order.
He said peace, unity and amity are essential for development of India and described November 9 as a day to forget any bitterness one may have. He said there is no place for fear, bitterness and negativity in new India.
Settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the Supreme Court in a historic verdict today backed the construction of a Ram temple by a trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya, and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for a mosque in the Hindu holy town. (PTI)
Highlights of verdict
Following are the highlights of the Supreme Court judgement in which it unanimously granted the entire 2.77 acre of disputed Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla.
* Possession of disputed land will be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, one of the three litigants in the case.
* The land will remain with a Central Government receiver.
* The disputed site was government land in the revenue records.
* SC directs allotment of alternative land to Muslims to build new mosque.
* Suitable land of 5 acre to be handed over to Sunni Waqf Board at prominent place for building the mosque.
* Centre to frame scheme within 3 months and set up a trust for construction of a temple.
* SC dismisses plea of Nirmohi Akhara seeking control of entire disputed land.
* Centre, UP govt can monitor together future actions by authorities.
* SC asks the Centre to grant representation in the trust to Nirmohi Akhara if deemed fit by the government.
* SC holds that Nirmohi Akhara’s suit is barred by limitation, not a Shebait or devotee of deity Ram Lalla – Ram Janmbhoomi is not a juristic person.
* Babri mosque, demolished on December 6, 1992, was not built on vacant land.
* SC says that terming the archeological evidence as merely an opinion would be a great disservice to the ASI.
* Fact that there lay a temple beneath the destroyed structure has been established by the ASI, says SC.
* The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure.
* ASI had not established whether temple was demolished to build the mosque.
* Hindus consider this place as birthplace of lord Ram, even Muslims say this about disputed place.
* Faith of Hindus that Lord Rama was born at demolished structure is undisputed.
* The existence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra and Bhandar grih are the testimony of the religious fact of the place.
* Evidence suggest Hindus were in possession of outer court yard.
* Extensive nature of Hindus worshipping at outer courtyard at site has been there.
* Evidence suggest Muslims offered Friday prayers at mosque which indicates they have not lost possession.
* Despite obstruction caused in offering prayers at Mosque, evidence suggest that there was no abandonment.
* Iron railing was set up at site in 1856-1857, it suggests Hindus kept worshipping at the site.
* Title cannot be established on ground of faith, belief; they are kind of indicator for deciding dispute.
* Muslims have not adduced evidence they were in exclusive possession of dispute site.
* Muslims were not in possession of outer courtyard of the site.
* UP Sunni Central Waqf Board has failed to establish its case in Ayodhya dispute.
* On the contrary, Hindus established their case that they were in possession of outer courtyard.
* Damage to Babri Mosque was violation of law.
* 5-Judge Constitution bench which delivered the verdict comprised Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.
* Pronouncement of the verdict, which commenced at 10:30 AM, went on for 45 minutes.
* 14 appeals were filed in SC against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties-the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
* Initially, as many as five lawsuits were filed in the lower court. The first one was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of “Ram Lalla”, in 1950 to seek enforcement of the right to worship of Hindus at the disputed site.
* In the same year, the Paramahansa Ramachandra Das had also filed the lawsuit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols under the central dome of the now-demolished disputed structure.
* The plea was later withdrawn.
* The Nirmohi Akahara moved the trial court in 1959 seeking management and “shebaiti” (devotee) rights over the 2.77 acre disputed land.
* Then came the lawsuit of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board which moved the court in 1961, claiming title right over the disputed property.
* The deity, “Ram Lalla Virajman”, through next friend and former Allahabad High Court judge Deoki Nandan Agrawal, and the Janmbhoomi (the birthplace) moved the lawsuit in 1989, seeking title right over the entire disputed property on the key ground that the land itself has the character of the deity and of a “Juristic entity”.
* All the lawsuits were transferred to the Allahabad High Court for adjudication following the demolition of the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid structure on December 6, 1992, sparking communal riots in the country.
* SC on August 6 commenced day-to-day proceedings in the case as the mediation proceedings initiated to find the amicable resolution had failed.
* The bench on October 16 had reserved the judgement after a marathon hearing of 40 days. (PTI)
Chronology of Events
Following is the chronology of events in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case in Ayodhya.
* 1528: Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur.
* 1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed structure. Court rejects the plea.
* 1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under central dome outside the disputed structure.
* 1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla.
* Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files suit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols.
* 1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site.
* 1961: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.
* Feb 1, 1986: Local court orders the Government to open the site for Hindu worshippers.
* Aug 14, 1989: Allahabad HC orders maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.
* Dec 6, 1992: Babri Masjid demolished.
* Apr 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquiring land by Centre in the disputed area.
* Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed in Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act.
* SC exercising its jurisdiction under Article 139A transferred the writ petitions, which were pending in the High Court.
* Oct 24, 1994: SC says in historic Ismail Faruqui case mosque was not integral to Islam.
* Apr, 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.
* Mar 13, 2003: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.
* Sep 30, 2010: HC, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
* May 9, 2011: SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.
* Mar 21, 2017: CJI JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties.
* Aug 7: SC constitutes three-Judge bench to hear pleas challenging 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
* Feb 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals.
* Jul 20: SC reserves verdict.
* Sep 27: SC declines to refer the case to a five-Judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-Judge bench on October 29.
* Oct 29: SC fixes the case for the first week of January before an appropriate bench, which will decide the schedule of hearing.
* Dec 24: SC decides to take up petitions on case for hearing on January 4, 2019.
* Jan 4, 2019: SC says an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the title case.
* Jan 8: SC sets up a five-Judge Constitution Bench to hear the case headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud.
* Jan 10: Justice U U Lalit recuses himself prompting SC to reschedule the hearing for January 29 before a new bench.
* Jan 25: SC reconstitutes 5-member Constitution Bench to hear the case. The new bench comprises Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
* Jan 29: Centre moves SC seeking permission to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.
* Feb 26: SC favours mediation, fixes Mar 5 for order on whether to refer matter to court-appointed mediator.
* Mar 8: SC refers the dispute for mediation by a panel headed by former Apex Court Judge F M I Kallifulla.
* Apr 9: Nirmohi Akhara opposes in SC Centre’s plea to return acquired land around Ayodhya site to owners.
* May 9: 3-member mediation committee submits interim report in SC.
* May 10: SC extends time till Aug 15 to complete mediation process.
* Jul 11: SC seeks report on “progress of mediation”.
* Jul 18: SC allows mediation process to continue, seeks outcome report by Aug 1.
* Aug 1: Report of mediation submitted in sealed cover to SC.
* Aug 2: SC decides to conduct day-to day hearing from Aug 6 as mediation fails.
* Aug 6: SC commences day-to-day hearing on the land dispute.
* Oct 4: SC says it will wrap up hearing on Oct 17, judgment by Nov 17.
* SC directs UP Govt to provide security to State Waqf Board Chairperson.
* Oct 16: SC concludes hearing; reserves order.
* Nov 9: SC grants entire 2.77 acre of disputed land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla, possession of land will remain with Central Government receiver. SC also directs Centre and UP Govt to allot 5 acre land to the Muslims at a prominent place for building mosque. (PTI)
Follow our WhatsApp channel
