M. SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS V. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS.

CASE NAME: M. SIDDIQ (D) THR LRS V. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS.

INTRODUCTION

1. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (Ayodhya Title Dispute) marks the end of one of India’s longest and most heated court cases.The clash has a historical, social and political dimension which has been centuries old and relates to a 2.77-acre land parcel in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh where religious groups hold opposing claims.
2. The Hindu community claims the place is where Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhumi) was born and a pre-existing Hindu temple was demolished to erect a mosque.
3. The Muslim community argued that the Babri Masjid was a mosque constructed in 16th century by or at the command of the 1st Mughal Emperor Babur on the land that was deemed vacated.
4. The title dispute straddled the Mughal, British and the modern constitutional regimes in India and was set to be decided by the Supreme Court of India.
5. It was a unanimous verdict by five-judge Constitution Bench which was hoping to give a legal burial to the issue that had deeply divided the social fabric of the nation including the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992.
6. It is a noteworthy exposition on the interplay between faith and belief and the rule of law in a secular and democratic republic.

FACTS OF CASE

The factual matrix of the case is shared by several centuries:

1. 1528, the Babri Masjid was built, on Emperor Babur’s instructions. The first recorded communal riots over the site took place.
2. 1856-57,A fence made of grill-brick was made and the property was divided by the British colonial administration so as to avoid a dispute.The inner courtyard was reserved for Muslims for their worship and the outer courtyard for the Hindus with buildings such as Ramchabutra and Sita Rasoi.
3. In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit for permission to erect a temple on the Ramchabutra in the outer courtyard. The courts dismissed the suit, stating that the site was a Hindu land, but the passage of time and the need for public order were noted.
4. In 1934, another communal riot was reported, which caused damage to the building of the mosque which was then repaired by the British government.
5. On 22-23 December 1949, the idols of Lord Ram were deposited under the central dome of the mosque. This resulted in a public outcry and legal action was taken.
6. To avoid further violation of peace, the Additional City Magistrate Faizabad issued an order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, attaching the property and appointing a receiver.
7. In 1950-1961, there were four major civil suits:
8. a) Suit 1 (1950): Gopal Singh Visharad filed petition to allow worship of the idols in the inner courtyard.
9. b) Suit 3 (1959): Filed by the Nirmohi Akhara, claiming shebaitship (management and charge) of the temple.
10. c) Suit 4 (1961): The U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board filed a suit seeking a declaration of title over the mosque and around land and possession.
11. In 1989, a fifth suit (Suit 5) was filed by Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman and Asthan Shri Ram Janmabhumi, represented by a “next friend”, claiming the whole property and asking for an injunction against any obstruction to the construction of a new temple.
12. On December 6, 1992, Babri Masjid was destroyed with the help of a huge gang of ‘kar sevaks’.
13. In a 2:1 majority judgement, the Allahabad High Court decided to divide the disputed 2.77 acres between the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and ‘Ram Lalla’ (in the name of the Hindu community) in 2010.All parties appealed this judgment to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

The Supreme Court set out to resolve a number of issues, broadly speaking:

keepability of the Suits:

1. Whether the suits filed by Nirmohi Akhara (Suit 3) and Sunni Waqf Board (Suit 4) were barred by the law of limitation?
2. whether the suit filed by Mahant Raghubar Das in 1885 constituted barring subsequent suits by Hindu parties under it as res judicata?

Juristic Personality:

1. Whether the deity ‘Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman’ (the idol) is a juristic person or not?
2. Whether ‘Asthan Shri Ram Janmabhumi’ (the birthplace itself, as a concept or land) could be recognised as a juristic person?

The title and possession:

1. Whether any party had the title to the property, which party could establish ownership, title, use, and evidence of possession?
2. whether the disputed structure was a valid mosque as per Islamic law or whether it was constructed after the demolition of a Hindu temple, based on the evidence, including the report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that was submitted?
3. Whether any party had established title by adverse possession?

Relief:

1. Whether the judgment of Allahabad High Court giving directions for partition of land in three parts is valid and sustainable in law?

ARGUMENTS

The arguments presented by the Hindu Parties (Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara):

1. Ram Lalla Virajman (Suit 5): Suggested that the idol and the birthplace (Asthan) are different juristic persons.The entire disputed land is a place of worship and it is the divine spirit of Lord Ram who is personified on the land.It was argued that the land is a god and is inalienable, meaning that no other party can own the land nor have adverse possession over it.They used to go by the ancient scriptures (such as the Skanda Purana), travelogues (such as Joseph Tieffenthaler), historical gazetteers and the ASI report to prove that there was already an extensive Hindu religious structure below the mosque.
2. Nirmohi Akhara (Suit 3): Stated to be the shebait of Janmasthan temple for centuries.They claimed that they had occupied and controlled the land, and had worshipped there and received donations from worshippers, until they were improperly removed by the statutory receiver in 1949.They demanded restoration of their management rights.

The Arguments from Muslim Parties (Sunni Central Waqf Board):

1. Sunni Central Waqf Board (Suit 4): Stated that the Babri Masjid was a public Mosque constructed as a result of the directions of Emperor Babur on the vacant land by Mir Baqi in 1528. It was dedicated as a waqf and Muslims had been in continuous and exclusive possession praying until it was desecrated in December 1949, which led to expulsion of the Muslim worshippers. The Hindus contended that the cause of action was of recent vintage and that no action could be taken because of the statute of limitations. They questioned the proof value of the ASI report, claiming that it was inconclusive and based on inferences. They also argued “adverse possession,” which is the doctrine of more than 400 years of uninterrupted possession.

JUDGEMENT AND RATIO DECENDENDI

JUDGEMENT: The Supreme Court had struck down the Allahabad High Court’s verdict in favor of a three-way partition on ground that it was legally not a partition suit.The final decision was as follows:

1. The entire land disputed area of 2.77 acres was granted to the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman (first plaintiff in suit No. 5).
2. The Central Government was asked to come up with a scheme within three months in accordance with the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 to establish a Trust.This Trust would be responsible for the site and the building of a temple.
3. The Court, under the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, granted itself the power of doing “complete justice”, decided that the land parcel of 5 acres of prime (facing) land in Ayodhya, was to be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.
4. The suit by the Nirmohi Akhara was dismissed as being barred by limitation.In recognition of their historical presence in the area, however, the Court, under Article 142, directed that the Nirmohi Akhara be represented in the Trust to be established by the Central Government, appropriately.

RATIO DECENDENDI: The judgment can be summarised as:

1. It should be based on established legal principles of evidence & possession, and not on faith or belief in a title dispute over immovable property.
2. Preponderance of probability is the standard of proof used in a civil case.The Court was satisfied that the evidence of the possession and worship of the Hindu parties for the composite site was comparatively better than the possession and worship of the Muslim parties.
3. Property such as land cannot be granted a juristic personality based on a religious belief for it would destroy the secular character of the law and would make property law principles unapplicable.
4. The power under Article 142 of the Constitution may be used to redress a wrong and to secure total fairness even though the party’s own right to do so may not have been fully established or may be barred by procedure.This formed the foundation to allocate land for the mosque and representation for Nirmohi Akhara.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

The Ayodhya judgment has been praised for resolving an explosive issue through a legal process, but has been condemned on various grounds:

1. Critics contend that the Court chose to go by a practical and political solution rather than by legal precedent.The fact that the land has been given to Hindu parties in the same breath as the “egregious violation of the rule of law” in the demolition of the mosque is interpreted by some as a balancing act which gives an award to the party that took the law into their own hands.
2. The Court, clearly expressing its view that it was not deciding based on the faith, did strongly rely on evidence of continuous Hindu worship, which was based on the tenet that the place was the Janmabhumi.The decision to accept travelogues and gazetteers as proof of this belief was pivotal and some scholars believe that faith-based claims are given the quasi-legal status because of this.
3. The use of Article 142, which is granted the land for the mosque, has been commended as a measure towards the process of restorative justice.It’s also regarded as a concession the Muslim parties were not entirely without justification, although they lost the title.This has prompted discussions that whether “complete justice” is substitute to the decision of pure legal rights under Article 142.
4. ASI Report as a Deciding Factor: The use of the ASI Report has been called into question.The report does not state that the structure was demolished, and it was four centuries between the underlying structure and the mosque.The Court’s acceptance of the report has implicitly abided the “temple-under-the-mosque” narrative that was a major part of the political campaign of the temple, giving the narrative considerable importance.
5. Impact on Secularism: The verdict has opened up an extended discussion on the future impact on the secularism in India. Some say that it is advancing the majority community’s faith in a property dispute, and maybe for this reason a precedent that can be followed for other religious sites. Others maintain that by providing for a mosque and upholding constitutional values in its reasoning, the Court has tried to reinforce the secular fabric.

CONCLUSION

1. The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute is a groundbreaking ruling that aimed to address a contentious matter in a legally just manner.When it decided it was a title suit on proof of possession, the Court was trying to make its ruling on secular law.It scoured through centuries of history, religious scriptures and massive evidence to reach a verdict based on the weight of the evidence.
2. The final ruling, which awarded the contested land for the building of a temple, with the land for a mosque, was a judicial effort to reconcile and balance the rights and feelings of both groups.
3. The use of Article 142 to offer restorative justice shows that the case was indeed peculiar.Although the decision has paved the way towards the legal resolution of the conflict, the reasoning and the socio-political ramifications are still the subject of much debate in academia and amongst the public, due to the intertwining of law, religion and history in contemporary India.

REFRENCE(S):

1. Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., (2020) 1 SCC 1.
2. in on 13 September 2020.Supreme Court Observer, “Ayodhya Title Dispute”.
3. Redalyc, “Evidentiary value of archaeological evidence,” redalyc.org.
4. Kamaleshwar S., “A CASE COMMENTARY ON M. SIDDIQ (D) The. Lrs. v/s. MAHANT SURESH DAS & ORS., JLRJS 2023.
5. Summary of Ayodhya verdict, judicial Academy Jharkhand, jajharkhand.in.
6. The Indian Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Verdict , Institute of South Asian Studies, NUS, (isas.nus.edu.sg, 2019).