Rama Janma Bhoomi - for the Dummies

The Supreme Court of India on 09 Nov 2019, decided on the title suit on a piece of land on which a mosque was demolished by a Hindutva mob in 1992 in the town of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh to the Hindus, paving the way for a Ram temple to be built there. While awarding the piece of land, It also ordered the government to acquire an alternative plot of land measuring 5 acres, on which a mosque can be built instead.  

If we go into the background of the case, it was a ‘Title Suit’ – a question as to who has title claim to the 2.77 acres of land where the demolished Babri Masjid stood. With time, individual litigants have impleaded themselves and broadly got divided into ‘Hindu’ and ‘Muslim’ parties. The Hindu parties, primarily the ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ (which is the Deity, Ram itself) and the Nirmohi Akhara (a group of sants who claimed to have exclusive rights over the maintenance of the Hindu shrine), claimed that the land is the sacred site where Ram was born and so deserves to belong to Hindus.  For this, the prime rationale put forward was that this was the ‘belief of millions of Hindus’. The Sunni Waqf Board, the primary litigant on the Muslim side, argued that there is no evidence that this was the site of Ram’s birth or that there was once a temple on that spot. 

Background 

The case was first brought before a local Court way back in the 19th century when it was decided that a temple could not be built on a spot just outside the mosque because it would cause communal problems. Since then, various local courts have examined the matter and issued orders and cases continued to be filed, till a special full-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court took cognizance and decided in 2010 that the land would be split three ways between the primary litigants, the deity, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board. Similar to the story of the King Solomon, who ordered splitting a baby between two contesting mothers, the Judgement was filed for a review in the Apex Court by all the three parties, resulting in a Stay of the High court Order. Attempts were made for mediation, but in vain. To summarise the Supreme Court in the instant case, was considering whether the Allahabad High Court judgment was valid or not.

Subsequent to a marathon hearing of all the parties, the 5 Bench Constitution Court of the Supreme Court finally gave its directions.  Here are the key take-aways from the judgment as read out by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.

• Supreme Court gives the entire disputed land of 2.77-acre to deity ‘Ram Lalla’ (who is also one of the Petitioners in the title suit), subject to certain conditions. The court ruled that the site will be managed by a Centre-formed Trust (to be formed within 3 months). The land rights will be handed over to ‘Ram Lalla’, but the possession will remain with a Central Government appointed ‘Receiver’. 
• Muslim parties will be awarded five acres in an alternate plot of land at a prominent place in Ayodhya.
• The Apex court observed that the High Court Order dividing the land between the Hindu and Muslims parties, “defied logic”.
• The Supreme Court said that the Sunni Central Waqf Board has failed to establish its case in Ayodhya dispute. It observed that the Petitioners have failed to submit any evidence that they were in possession of the disputed site during a particular period of time.  On the other side, however, Hindus established their case that they were in possession of outer courtyard, where worshipping of Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi had continued.  Further, the Court also noted that the disputed land was government land in the revenue records, but government never showed any interest in it. It said that Muslims were unable to prove that it had possession of the same. 
• Nirmohi Akhara's Shebait rights dismissed (A Shebait under Hindu Law is entrusted with the task of maintaining and preserving an Idol, its properties and its customs) but Centre has been allowed to grant the Hindu body representation in the trust if deemed fit by the government.  It also dismissed the plea of the Akhara, to have control of the entire disputed land.
• Shia Waqf Board claim in the dispute was also dismissed and held that the land belongs to the government as per revenue records.
• Supreme Court says Babri Mosque not built on vacant land, and the underlying structure was not Islamic in nature. However, The Supreme Court has also observed that the Archaeological Survey of India has not clarified whether the structure found underneath was a Ram Temple.
• The Apex court also said that the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the demolished structure is 'undisputed', however, the title cannot be established on the ground of faith or belief and they are only an indicator for deciding the dispute.
• Damage to Babri mosque was violation of law, the Supreme Court said. It held that Muslim were deprived of the possession of the mosque by forcible desecration.  However, by paving the way for a Ram temple to be built on the spot where the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992, a long-standing demand of Hindutva organisations and the BJP, it indirectly endorsed an act of mob vandalism, by gving away the land to the Hindu parties. It is anybody’s guess to say what the verdict would have been, had the Mosque was still standing in the disputed site.    
• One judge has dissented on the disputed site being held the birth place of Lord Ram. However, the CJI didn't name that judge.
• The Judgement running into 1045 pages, along with an Addenda (explaining why the disputed land is the birth place of Lord Ram as per the faith and belief, is an unusual practice), does not name the Judge who had authored it.  This is contrary to the established practice of naming the Judges authoring a Judgement. It may be noted that as a norm, the name of the Judge who authors a verdict is given at the beginning of the Judgement and the names of concurring Judges are placed at the end, while any dissenting directives are separately mentioned.  

My Take

In piecemeal, The Supreme Court bench on Saturday made a series of interesting observations before it delivered its verdict in the Ayodhya dispute.  While, It held the placement of idols in 1949 inside the former Babri Masjid as illegal and demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as unlawful, it granted the disputed site to the Hindu community to build a temple on the disputed 2.77 acres.  This needs to be seen in the overall scheme of things where the UP Govt has since acquired 67 acres of land around the disputed site. It is clear that designs  for a grand Ram Temple is on the cards. 

By directing a temple to be built, even when it says that the demolition and placement of idols was illegal, the Supreme Court is indirectly endorsing an act of vandalism, thereby giving out an impression that India has now become a majoritarian state where mob rule by the majority can be given the immunity of state authority. This mere posturing is sure to give an impetus to demands and claims from the Right Wing, to stake their claim to other similar Muslim structures and shrines, simply because they believe they stand on places that Hindus find as sacred.

Copy of the Complete Judgement can be accessed and downloaded from here.