Takeaways from the landmark judgment by Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case:
1. The Supreme Court said the Allahabad High Court’s remedy of a three-way bifurcation of the disputed premises among the
Ayodhya deity, Sri Bhagwan Ram Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, and the Sunni Central Waqf Board “defied logic”. It did not “secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity”.
2. The court said that the faith of the
Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site where the Babri Masjid once stood cannot be disputed.
- The court held there was both oral and documentary evidence to support the Hindus’ faith that the Janma Asthan was located where the Babri Masjid was constructed.
- The court said there was proof of extensive worship offered by the Hindus, especially in the outer courtyard where the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi are located, even before the annexation of the Oudh by the British in 1857.
- What tipped the scales in favor of the Hindu parties seems to be the prevalence of worship by Hindu pilgrims from a much earlier era, whereas, the offering of namaaz has been established only from around
1856-57.
3. The Supreme Court also said that the
1992 demolition of the 16th century
Babri Masjid Mosque was a violation of the law.
- But while reading out its judgment, the Supreme Court said that the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board had failed to establish its case in Ayodhya dispute case and Hindus have established their case that they were in possession of outer courtyard of the disputed site.
- The five-judge Constitution Bench that delivered the judgment in the Ayodhya case said that while Muslims never lost possession of the disputed land, they could not assert the right of adverse possession.
- The Muslim side had claimed that the mosque was built 400 years ago by Babar – and that even if it is assumed that it was built on the land where a temple earlier existed, Muslims, by virtue of their long exclusive and continuous possession – beginning from the time the mosque was built, and up to the time the mosque was desecrated –they had perfected their title by adverse possession.
- This argument has now been rejected by the Supreme Court
- In fact, a similar view was taken by the two judges of the Allahabad High Court.
- Justice D V Sharma had said that Muslims cannot claim adverse possession against the said property because it was an open place and everybody was visiting including Muslims.
4. Hence the Supreme Court has granted the entire
2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla. As compensation of sorts for the destruction of the mosque in 1992, the Muslim parties are set to get a five-acre plot elsewhere.
- The Supreme Court, implicitly referring to the demolition of the Babri Masjid at the disputed site, said that it was invoking Article 142 “to ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied”.
- The provision that vests sweeping powers in the Supreme Court for the end of ensuring “complete justice” has been used generally in cases that involve human rights and environmental protection.
- This was the first time that the court invoked this power in a case involving a civil dispute over immovable property, involving private parties.
- It said that while the court’s power under Article 142 “is not limitless”, it “embodies both the notion of justice, equity and good conscience as well as a supplementary power to the court to effect complete justice”.
- In fact, it wasn’t just for the Muslim parties that the SC invoked Article 142. The same article was invoked in the case of the Nirmohi Akhara, who was a party to the case.
5. The court dismissed the Akhara’s petition as time-barred and rejected its suit claiming she bait (managerial rights) over the property.
- However, the court invoked its extraordinary powers to ask the government to give Nirmohi Akhara, considering the sect’s historical presence at the disputed site, to provide it with an “appropriate role in the management” of the property.