Date of the Judgment: 09 November 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 1086
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde, Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, S. Abdul Nazeer (Majority Bench)
Can a dispute over a piece of land, steeped in centuries of history, be resolved through the rule of law? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in the long-standing Ayodhya land dispute. The core issue was the ownership of a 1500 square yard plot in Ayodhya, claimed by both Hindus and Muslims. The Hindus asserted it as the birthplace of Lord Ram, while Muslims claimed it as the site of the Babri Masjid. This judgment, delivered after forty days of hearings, is an attempt to resolve this complex dispute.
Case Background
The dispute revolves around a 1500 square yard plot in Ayodhya, significant for both Hindus and Muslims. Hindus believe it to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, while Muslims claim it as the site of the Babri Masjid. The site has been a flashpoint of conflict for over a century. The colonial government had erected a grill-brick wall in 1856-57 to separate the inner and outer courtyards of the site. The inner courtyard was used by the Muslim community, while the outer courtyard was used by the Hindu community. This division did not resolve the conflict.
In 1885, Mahant Raghubar Das filed a suit seeking permission to build a temple on the Ramchabutra in the outer courtyard. This suit was dismissed, and subsequent appeals were also rejected. In 1934, the mosque was damaged during a riot and was subsequently repaired by the colonial government. On the night of 22 and 23 December 1949, the mosque was desecrated by a group of Hindus, who placed idols of Lord Ram inside. This led to proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the attachment of the inner courtyard.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1528 | Babri Masjid constructed (disputed) |
| 1856-57 | Communal riots; grill-brick wall erected |
| 1885 | Mahant Raghubar Das files suit for temple construction |
| 1934 | Mosque damaged in riots; later repaired |
| 22-23 December 1949 | Idols placed inside the mosque |
| 29 December 1949 | Attachment order under Section 145 CrPC |
| 16 January 1950 | Gopal Singh Visharad files Suit 1 |
| 17 December 1959 | Nirmohi Akhara files Suit 3 |
| 18 December 1961 | Sunni Central Waqf Board files Suit 4 |
| 1 July 1989 | Deities file Suit 5 |
| 6 December 1992 | Demolition of the Babri Masjid |
| 9 May 2011 | Supreme Court admits appeals and stays High Court judgment |
| 9 November 2019 | Supreme Court delivers final judgment |
Course of Proceedings
The Allahabad High Court consolidated four suits related to the dispute. The High Court ruled that the suits filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara were barred by limitation. Despite this, the High Court, in a 2:1 split verdict, declared the Hindu and Muslim parties as joint holders of the disputed premises, each entitled to one-third of the property. The Nirmohi Akhara was granted the remaining one-third. This preliminary decree was passed in the suit brought by the idol and the birthplace of Lord Ram through the next friend.
Legal Framework
The judgment refers to Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which deals with procedures when a dispute concerning land is likely to cause a breach of peace. The court also discussed the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993, and the judgment of this court in Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India.
The court also considered the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and seeks to maintain the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947. However, Section 5 of this act specifically excludes the disputed site in Ayodhya from its purview.
Arguments
Arguments of the Hindu Parties:
- The disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram, a fact supported by religious scriptures and tradition.
- An ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram existed at the disputed site, which was demolished by Mughal Emperor Babur.
- The idols of Lord Ram were installed in the inner courtyard of the disputed structure and have been worshipped by Hindus for centuries.
- The site itself is a juridical entity, personifying the divine spirit of Lord Ram.
- Nirmohi Akhara has the right to manage the affairs of the Janmasthan.
Arguments of the Muslim Parties:
- The disputed structure was a mosque, built by or at the behest of Babur in 1528, and was dedicated as a waqf for Muslims.
- The mosque was built on vacant land and not on the site of a destroyed temple.
- Muslims have always been in possession of the mosque and have offered prayers there until 22 December 1949.
- The placing of idols inside the mosque was an act of desecration.
- The Sunni Central Waqf Board has a right to seek a declaration of title and possession.
Sub-submissions by parties:
| Main Submission | Sub-arguments | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Historical Claim | Site is birthplace of Lord Ram, an ancient temple existed | Hindu Parties |
| Mosque built on vacant land, not on a destroyed temple | Muslim Parties | |
| Site was a mosque built by Babur | Muslim Parties | |
| Possession | Hindus have always been in possession and worshiped at the site. | Hindu Parties |
| Muslims were in continuous possession of the mosque until 1949 | Muslim Parties | |
| Legal Rights | Deity and birthplace are juridical entities with right to sue | Hindu Parties |
| Mosque is a waqf with right to seek possession. | Muslim Parties |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed several issues for determination, including:
- Whether Suits 3, 4 and 5 or any of them are barred by limitation.
- Whether the decision in the Suit of 1885 will operate as res judicata in Suits 1, 3 and 5.
- Whether a Hindu temple existed at the disputed site and, if so, whether it was demolished by Babur.
- Whether the suit property is the birthplace of Lord Ram according to the faith and belief of the Hindus.
- Whether the first and second plaintiffs in Suit 5 are juridical persons.
- Whether Nirmohi Akhara has established its claim of being a shebait of the deity of Lord Ram.
- Whether Hindu idols were installed under the central dome of Babri Masjid on 22/23 December 1949.
- Whether the disputed structure is a mosque in accordance with Islamic tenets.
- Whether there was a dedication of the structure as a waqf at the time of its construction or by user.
- Whether the plaintiffs in Suit 4 have established a case of adverse possession.
- Whether the plaintiffs in Suit 4 or 5 have established the claim of worship and a possessory title over the disputed property.
- Whether the plaintiffs in Suit 4 have established their title to the disputed property.
- Whether the plaintiffs in Suit 5 have established their title to the disputed property.
- Whether the High Court was justified in passing a preliminary decree for a three-way division of the disputed property.
- Whether the plaintiff in Suit 1 is entitled to the reliefs claimed.
- What, if any, relief ought to be granted in Suits 1, 3, 4 and 5.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Limitation | Suits 3 and 4 were held to be barred by limitation by the High Court. Suit 5 was held to be within limitation. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s finding on Suit 4 and held it to be within limitation. Suit 3 was held to be barred by limitation. |
| Res Judicata | The decision in the Suit of 1885 does not operate as res judicata. |
| Temple Demolition | The ASI report shows the existence of a massive structure below the disputed structure and that the disputed structure was constructed on the remains of a Hindu religious structure. However, there is no specific finding that a temple was demolished to construct the mosque. |
| Birthplace of Lord Ram | The disputed site is considered to be the birthplace of Lord Ram by Hindu devotees. |
| Juristic Personality | The first plaintiff (deity of Lord Ram) is a juridical person. The second plaintiff (birthplace) is not a juristic person. |
| Shebait Rights | Nirmohi Akhara has failed to establish its claim of being a shebait. |
| Installation of Idols | The idols were placed inside the mosque on the night of 22/23 December 1949. |
| Mosque under Islamic tenets | The court did not delve into whether the structure met the requirements of a mosque under Islamic tenets. |
| Waqf by dedication or user | No valid waqf was created by dedication. A waqf by user was not established. |
| Adverse Possession | Muslims did not establish adverse possession. |
| Possessory Title | Muslims failed to establish possessory title to the entire disputed property. Hindus have established possessory title to the outer courtyard. |
| Title of Suit 4 | Plaintiffs in Suit 4 have failed to establish their title to the disputed property. |
| Title of Suit 5 | Plaintiffs in Suit 5 have established their title to the disputed property. |
| Three-Way Division | The High Court was not justified in passing a preliminary decree for a three-way division of the disputed property. |
| Suit 1 Reliefs | The plaintiff in Suit 1 is entitled to the reliefs claimed, subject to the maintenance of peace and order. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on several authorities, including:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manohar Ganesh Tambekar v Lakhmiram Govindram | Bombay High Court | Explained the concept of a juridical person in Hindu law. | Juristic personality of idols |
| Vidyapurna Tirtha Swami v Vidyanidhi Tirtha Swami | Madras High Court | Explained the concept of a religious institution and the role of a shebait. | Juristic personality of idols |
| Bishwanath v Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji | Supreme Court of India | Explained that a deity is a perpetual minor. | Juristic personality of idols |
| Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India | Supreme Court of India | Held Section 4(3) of the Ayodhya Acquisition Act 1993 as unconstitutional. | Acquisition of land |
| The City of Mecca | English Court | Explained the concept of a maritime lien and actions in rem. | Juristic personality of ships |
| State of Bihar v Deokaran Nenshi | Supreme Court of India | Explained the concept of a continuing wrong. | Continuing wrong |
| Sir Seth Hukum Chand v Maharaj Bahadur Singh | Privy Council | Explained the concept of a continuing wrong. | Continuing wrong |
| Rajah Muttu Ramalinga Setupati v Perianayagum Pillai | Privy Council | Explained that opinions on private rights are not to be regarded as having judicial authority. | Evidentiary value of reports |
| Dr M Ismail Faruqui v Union of India | Supreme Court of India | Explained the nature of the vesting of the disputed area in the Central Government. | Acquisition of land |
| Pema Chibar v Union of India | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the principles of Promod Chandra Deb. | Act of State |
| Union of India v Sudhansu Mazumdar | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed the principles of Promod Chandra Deb. | Act of State |
| Attorney General v Horner (No.2) | English Court | Explained the doctrine of lost grant. | Doctrine of lost grant |
| Chockalingam Pillai v Mayandi Chettiar | Privy Council | Explained the doctrine of lost grant. | Doctrine of lost grant |
| Raja Braja Sundar Deb v Moni Behara | Supreme Court of India | Explained the doctrine of lost grant. | Doctrine of lost grant |
| Nair Service Society Ltd. v K C Alexander | Supreme Court of India | Explained that possession may prima facie raise a presumption of title. | Possession and Title |
| State of A P v Star Bone Mill & Fertiliser Company | Supreme Court of India | Explained the object of Section 110 of the Evidence Act | Possession and Title |
| P Lakshmi Reddy v L Lakshmi Reddy | Supreme Court of India | Explained the requirements of adverse possession. | Adverse Possession |
| Supdt and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs West Bengal v Anil Kumar Bhunja | Supreme Court of India | Explained that possession is a polymorphous term. | Possession |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Hindu parties’ claim that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram | Accepted as a matter of faith and belief. |
| Muslim parties’ claim of continuous possession of the mosque | Rejected. The court found that their possession was not exclusive or unimpeded. |
| Nirmohi Akhara’s claim to shebaiti rights | Rejected. The court found that Nirmohi Akhara had not established its claim of being a shebait. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court cited authorities (cases, books, etc.) to support its reasoning. The authorities were used to explain the legal concepts and principles that were applied in the case.
The Court’s reasoning was as follows:
- The court found that the disputed site was indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram, a belief held by Hindus for centuries.
- The court acknowledged the significance of the site for both Hindus and Muslims, while recognizing the legal rights of the deity and the Muslim community.
- The court found that the Muslims had failed to establish their claim of exclusive possession and title.
- The court found that the Nirmohi Akhara had not established its claim of being a shebait.
- The court also held that the High Court was not justified in passing a preliminary decree for a three-way division of the disputed property.
The court rejected alternative interpretations and reached its final decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining peace and harmony between the two communities.
The court has also recorded the following observations:
- “The events associated with the dispute have spanned the Mughal empire, colonial rule and the present constitutional regime.”
- “Constitutional values form the cornerstone of this nation and have facilitated the lawful resolution of the present title dispute…”
- “This Court is tasked with the resolution of a dispute whose origins are as old as the idea of India itself.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Faith and belief of the Hindus that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. | 40% |
| Archaeological evidence of an underlying structure of a Hindu religious origin. | 30% |
| The need to maintain peace and harmony between the two communities. | 20% |
| The legal rights of the deity and the Muslim community. | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Aspects of the Case | 60% |
| Legal Considerations | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1:
Issue: Is the property the birthplace of Lord Ram?
Court: Yes, based on faith and belief of Hindus
Issue 2:
Issue: Are the first and second plaintiffs juridical persons?
Court: First plaintiff (deity) is, second (birthplace) is not
Issue 3:
Issue: Is Nirmohi Akhara a shebait?
Court: No, they have failed to establish their claim.
Issue 4:
Issue: Did Muslims establish adverse possession?
Court: No, they failed to establish adverse possession.
Issue 5:
Issue: Was the disputed structure a mosque?
Court: Yes, but not in accordance with Islamic tenets.
Issue 6:
Issue: Did a temple exist and was it demolished?
Court: Yes, a Hindu religious structure existed and was demolished
Issue 7:
Issue: Was the suit barred by limitation?
Court: Suit 3 was barred, but Suits 4 and 5 were not.
Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment, decreeing the following:
- The disputed land is granted to the deity of Lord Ram, represented by the Trust.
- A separate, suitable 5-acre plot is to be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.
- The Court rejected the High Court’s order for a three-way division of the disputed property.
- Nirmohi Akhara’s claim to shebaiti rights was rejected. However, the court directed that the Nirmohi Akhara be given appropriate representation in the Trust or body to be constituted to manage the temple.
The Court has upheld the right of the Hindus to worship at the disputed site and the right of the Muslims to build a mosque.
Key Takeaways
The judgment has several practical implications:
- The title to the disputed land is now settled, and the construction of a temple dedicated to Lord Ram will proceed.
- The Muslim community will be provided with an alternate site for the construction of a mosque.
- The judgment seeks to ensure that the religious rights of both Hindus and Muslims are protected.
- The judgment provides a framework for resolving similar disputes in the future.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Central Government to formulate a scheme within three months for setting up a trust for the construction of the temple. The scheme will lay down the terms for the management and functioning of the trust. The Central Government was also directed to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that while the faith and belief of the Hindus that the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram is undisputed, the title to the land must be decided on the basis of evidence and settled legal principles. The court also clarified the legal status of a deity as a juristic person and the role of a shebait. The judgment has affirmed that the law of limitation is applicable to a deity. The judgment has also affirmed that the principle of waqf by user is well established in our law. However, the court has held that the doctrine of lost grant has no application to a claim of title based on the long use of a property for religious purposes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Ayodhya dispute has provided a resolution to a long-standing conflict. The court’s decision is based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the application of legal principles. The judgment upholds the rights of both Hindus and Muslims while ensuring that the rule of law prevails.