THE ” AYODHYA “ CASE : HINDU MAJORITARIANISM AND INDIAN SECULARISM

Updated: Oct 18, 2020

ABSTACT:

This paper aims to elucidate the conceptuality which made a unanimous land mark decision for the long-standing religious issues. This paper will also examine the historical relevancy of disputed land over ages and the prominent part of Archaeological survey of India. The interpretation of article 142 with the right to religion and secularism is part and parcel of this issue. This research paper critically examines the force of the court to proceed under article 145 of the constitution and the complete marshalling of evidence.

HIGHLIGHTS: Ayodhya disputes, UP Sunni central board of waqf, demonisation, archaeological survey, documentary evidence


INTRODUCTION:

The Second longest hearing in supreme court after the Keshvanand Bharti Case is Ayodhya Land Dispute case which lasted for about 40 days. The Dispute had political -religious bind between two religious communities and to the Nation at large. The Communities of Hindu believe it to be the birth place of lord Ram, whereas the community of Muslim claim it as a site of historically significant place of belief as Babri Masjid was built by First Mughal emperor, Barbur in 1528. The disputed land was the part of the village kot Ramchandra called, Ramkota at Ayodhya in the district of Faizabad. The old structure of mosque existed till Dec 6,1992 which was dismantled by the devotees of lord Ram as they factually believe lord Ram was born at the disputed land, for this reason it is called as Ram Janmasthan . People also asserted that there was an ancient temple of lord ram which was demolished by Mughal emperor Babur upon his conquest of India.


A BIRDS EYE VIEW:

In 1950, a Suit was instituted by a Hindu worshiper before the civil judge at Faizabad court for offering prayers near the temple idols. subsequently the Uttar Pradesh Sunni central board of waqf and other members of Muslim residents in ayodhya instituted a suit on 1961 for declaration of their title over the land. It was contended by the board that the Barbur masjid was built on a vacant land in sixteenth century and it was denied that the mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple. Prayers were offered ceaselessly till 23 Dec 1949, when a group of Hindu worshipers placed the idols of lord ram inside the mosque withe intend to destroy, damage, the Islamic structure. The mosque was completely deteriorated by sixty people who broke the locks and placed the idols in centre dome. First information report was files, treating the situation as emergent the Magistrate passed a preliminary order containing only two or three pujaris were allowed to enter inside to perform their religious ceremonies to the idols and public were restricted to enter



The state of Uttar Pradesh acquired 2.77acres of disputed and certain adjoining land during the pending of proceeding. This was effected by notification on 7, October 1991 under land acquisition Act. The accusation was set-aside after a writ petition was filed before the high court challenging the such accusation.

In order to prevent further crises central government brought a legislative act, Acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya Act 1993 was enacted by p. v. Nasinsa Rao to acquire 67.7 acres in disputed land. DR. Ismail Farqui and other Muslims members challenged the legality of the act, as the government has no right to acquire area of mosque. Five judge benches observed that (the mosque is not an essential part of Islamic practice and namaz by Muslim ca be offered anywhere in open place. M. P. N. Mishra was on the view that Babri masjid was not a valid mosque under the Islamic Jurisprudence and it lacked the very fibric need a basic feature, location, construction, design.


ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA:

In 23 October 2002, High Court issued a direction to ASI to carry out certain scientific investigation and to survey the disputed land by geo- Radiology. On February 17, 2003 The ASI Report was submitted to the court, which indicates enormous variety of anomalies which is regarded to be an ancient structure, flooring of disputed site is extended over a larger portion of the mosque. In order to evaluate the issue, high court directed to constitute a fourteen-member team and a site plan was prepared to indicate the number of deep narrow ditch or trenches to be laid into. The Final report of Archaeological report was produced in the court on 22 august 2003 there was innumerable archaeological evidence, CDs and reports of proofs, photos of prior demonisation, details of artefact's, been submitted, the judges have marshalled and relied on thousands of texts relating to various languages like Hindi, Sanskrit, English, and many more.

In 2010, Three Judge beach of Allahabad high court held that the members of the case to be joint holders of the disputed land and they were allotted one third shares to each of them in a preliminary decree.


POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

There arose the points for determinations that whether a Hindu temple existed at the disputed land, whether it was demolished by Babur, whether it was built using the remaining off and by materials of temple. The plaintiff has brought forth a positive view with regard to the existence and construction was prior to 433 years by Babur. It was construction of mosque was for the purpose of worships and for offerings. It is also remarked, inscriptions stating the construction of the mosque. During the course of proceeding, there has been a debate on the authencity of such inscriptions on whether the mosque was built on 1528 AD or at behest of the Babur the emperor.


MARSHALLING THE EVIDENCE:

The Documentary evidence they relied on the judgement was The Sharqi Architecture of Jaunpur with notes on zatarabad, Sahet-Mahet and other place in northern -western provinces and Oudh by fuhrer. These three inscriptions were basic support to the opinion that Babri mosque was constructed at ayodhya in 1523 AD. The second evidential inscription is "Babur Nama" which contains a reference to the order of Babur of construction of mosque and third set of texts in "Epigraphia India -Arabic -Persian supplement 1964 and 1965, as it contains the in scripts of structural design of mosque"

The report of ASI indicates the existence of under -lying larger dimensions of structures dating back to twelfth century with the evident of 85 pillars bases incorporated in 17 rows each contains five pillars. Which is propounded to be the Hindu origin base, the Mosque is taken place in pre-existing structure.


JUSTICE IN RUINS OF DEMOLITION OF MASJID:


Babri Masjid demolition was trigged by political sphere to riot which resulted in death of 2000. Central bureau of investigation arrested 49 members out of then seventeen were died during the trial. CBI submitted nearly 600 documents with 351 witness as evidence but the court acquitted everyone marking, there was lack of evidence and there was no exact proof for the authencity of video evidence submitted. It was also held that the demonisation was not pre-planned and the accused tried to stop the anti-social issues and they were not the perpetrators and so all the 32 accused were acquitted.


PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE:

The Hon’ble supreme court has revoked article 142 of Indian constitution while passing this judgement. As it views to provide a complete justice to the society and another 5 acres of land was allocated for construction of mosque in ayodhya.

The presence of well established pre-existing structure in ASI report, but it does not explicitly provide the reason for the destruction of such pre-existing structure or whether the demolition is made for construction of mosque.

1. ASI report sates the pre-existing structures to be in twelfth centuries. There was a time gap four centuries between the pre-existed structure and construction of mosque. There was no evidence to facilitate what transpired in such intervening course of four centuries.


2. The report nowhere stated that the pre-existing structure were used in construction of mosque. The pillars used for construction of mosque was black kasauti stones pillar but ASI report brought no such view regarding the colour or evidence to show that Kasauti pillars were found below the mosque.


3. Finding a title cannot be based on Archaeological findings which is now been parted with the landmark judgement. There was no evidential support that there exists a human presence. Title to the land disputes has to be decided on the bases of settled principles of law with relevance to evidentiary support which governs the trial.


JUDGEMNET:

A Five judge constitutional bench held, in order to avoid multicity of litigation and to provide complete justice, the power of court to mould it to result a complete justice under the exclusive jurisdiction of article 142 of the constitution. The court on November 9 unanimously gave the complete ownership of 2.77acres of disputed land to ayodhya to the ram Janmabhoomi and instituted a trust for construction and management of the temple, the name of the trust is Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra is created as per the verdict of supreme court and the procedures for the formation is explicitly laid down in parliament. Apart from the establishing complete justice, it was a balanced judgement. The supreme court said that the underlying structure was not an Islamic base. Considering Archaeological survey for land disputes is entirely a detrimental approach. The concept of complete justice is in other forum which makes decisions on force of the present political perspectives and it violates the basic structure of constitution and rights of the citizens


Credit: Seeba Ramzani. N 

Clg name : School of excellence in law

50 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Marine Pollution In India And Its Laws

Marine pollution The ocean constitute almost 70% of the globe. It is estimated that around 50-80% of Oxygen produced on Earth comes from the oceans. Marine pollution also known as oceans pollutions co

ENERGY POLICY ACT : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION : The Energy Policy Act, which was signed into law in 1992, came into effect on 24 October 1997. This law, for the first time, mandates energy-efficiency standards for all general purpose