INTRODUCTION
The Ayodhya dispute, with a history spanning more than a century, stands as one of the most complex legal challenges in India. Hindus believe the contested land to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, while Muslims argue that it is a holy place where they have worshiped for an extended period. In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hindus, granting them the disputed land to build a temple.
A BRIEF HISTORY
Back in 1885, the temple’s proposal for construction in Ayodhya by Raghubir Das was rejected by the Faizabad district court.
In 1949, Hindu idols were placed inside the central dome of the Babri Mosque. However, the Faizabad district court swiftly intervened, declaring the area a disputed site and locking it up.
Ten years later in 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara, a sector of Hindu monks, filed a suit, asserting they had been managing the Ram Janmabhoomi (disputed site) and worshiping Lord Ram there for centuries.
In 1961, the Sunni Central Waqf Board also filed a suit, stating they were the property owners as granted by the Mughals.
In 1989, senior advocate Deoki N Agarwal (third party), filed a suit on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman, arguing it was Lord Ram’s birthplace, thereby claiming rights over the disputed land.
In 1992, Kar Sevaks or volunteers of Vishwa Hindu Parishad demolished the Babri Masjid, further inflaming tensions.
DISPUTE BEFORE HIGH COURT
In 2010, the Allahabad High Court rendered a judgment ordering the disputed land to be shared among the three parties: Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Waqf Board, and Ram Lalla Virajman. However, none of the parties were satisfied with the judgment, leading to subsequent appeals in the Supreme Court. This led to the Hon’ble Apex Court to impose a stay on the lower court’s decision.
CORE ISSUE
The issue of the Ayodhya legal dispute was determining ownership and control of the religious site in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid stood, believed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram by Hindus. Both Hindus and Muslims claimed the site, particularly after the Babri Mosque was demolished in 1992 during a political rally. The three core issues which rose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were:
- Is the division of the Ayodhya land title among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, and Ram Lalla, as per the Allahabad High Court judgment, valid?
- Is the Ram Janmabhoomi (the birthplace of Ram) a juristic entity, independent of the presence of idols? And if so, is it immune from possession claims as a juristic entity?
- Whether a previous Hindu temple was demolished or modified to construct a mosque by Babur ?
FINAL VERDICT
On November 9, 2019, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered the 1045 paged final verdict in the case of M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, resolving the Ayodhya dispute. The unanimous decision ruled in favour of the deity, Shri Ram Virajman, allocating the disputed land for the construction of a temple. Having said that, Muslims were also granted an alternative five-acre piece of land in a prominent location to build a mosque. The bench also emphasized that the 1992 demolition of the Babri Mosque constituted a serious breach of the law.
Also, the Supreme Court dismissed Nirmohi Akhara’s plea for exclusive control over the disputed lands, suggesting the Center consider granting representation to Nirmohi Akhara in forming a trust. The court clarified that the structure beneath the Ayodhya disputed site was not Islamic, and while the ASI didn’t confirm the demolition of a temple for mosque construction, it left the matter open.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s verdict brought closure to a protracted legal battle, marking a historic moment in India’s legal history. The subsequent construction of the Ram Mandir became a symbol of religious harmony and a testament to the resilience of India’s judicial system in resolving complex and emotionally charged disputes.
