The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute

The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, which culminated in a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India in 2019, involved several critical issues that were meticulously deliberated upon. Here are some of the key issues addressed in the Supreme Court case:

1. Title Dispute:
   • Ownership Claims: The primary issue revolved around competing claims of ownership over the disputed site in Ayodhya. Both Hindu and Muslim parties claimed exclusive rights to the land where the Babri Masjid stood before its demolition in 1992.
   • Historical and Archaeological Evidence: The court examined historical records and archaeological findings, particularly the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, which indicated the presence of a Hindu temple beneath the Babri Masjid.
2. Adverse Possession and Waqf Status:
   • Muslim Parties’ Claims: The Sunni Waqf Board claimed ownership under principles of adverse possession (continuous and uninterrupted possession for a long period without contest) and waqf (endowment of property for religious or charitable purposes in perpetuity).
   • Legal Standing: The court scrutinized the legal status of the Babri Masjid as a waqf property and whether Muslim parties had valid claims based on historical usage and religious practices.
3. Freedom of Religion vs. Property Rights:
   • Religious Freedom: The case also touched upon the fundamental rights of religious freedom and the right to worship, considering the sentiments of both Hindu and Muslim communities regarding the disputed site.
   • Property Rights: Balancing these religious freedoms with property rights was crucial in determining the rightful claimants to the land and the implications of constructing a Ram temple at the site.
4. Doctrine of Essential Practices:
   • Religious Practices: The court considered whether the act of offering prayers (namaz) by Muslims at the disputed site constituted an essential religious practice and if denying them access would violate their religious rights.
   • Cultural and Historical Significance: It deliberated on the cultural and historical significance of the disputed site in the context of India’s composite cultural heritage.
5. Role of State and Rule of Law:
   • Government’s Role: The Supreme Court also examined the role of the state in maintaining law and order, particularly in instances of communal tensions and conflicts arising from the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.
   • Judicial Pronouncement: The case underscored the judiciary’s role in adjudicating sensitive religious disputes and upholding the rule of law to ensure justice and fairness for all parties involved.

ARGUMENTS

Arguments from Hindu Parties (Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, etc.):

1. Historical and Religious Belief:
   • Advocates representing Hindu parties argued that the disputed site in Ayodhya is the birthplace (Janmabhoomi) of Lord Ram according to Hindu religious texts and beliefs.
   • They emphasized that historical and religious evidence supports the existence of a temple dedicated to Lord Ram at the disputed site before the construction of the Babri Masjid.
2. Continuous Worship:
   • Hindu parties presented evidence to demonstrate that Hindus have been worshiping at the disputed site continuously, even after the construction of the Babri Masjid.
   • They argued that the existence of Hindu idols inside the mosque in 1949 and subsequent worship by Hindus demonstrated their continuous possession and claim to the site.
3. Archaeological Evidence:
   • Advocates referred to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, which suggested the presence of a Hindu temple-like structure beneath the Babri Masjid.
   • They argued that this archaeological evidence supported the Hindu claim that the site was originally a temple dedicated to Lord Ram.
4. Legal Ownership and Title Claims:
   • Hindu parties claimed legal ownership of the disputed site based on their continuous possession and religious rights.
   • They asserted that the site should be handed over to them for the construction of a Ram temple, as it holds significant religious and cultural importance for Hindus.

Arguments from Muslim Parties (Sunni Waqf Board):

1. Ownership through Waqf:
   • Advocates representing the Sunni Waqf Board argued that the Babri Masjid was built on waqf (endowment) land and hence belonged to the Muslim community.
   • They claimed legal ownership of the mosque and sought its restoration for offering prayers.
2. Adverse Possession:
   • Muslim parties presented arguments of adverse possession, asserting that they had exclusive possession and control over the disputed site for centuries, including offering regular prayers (namaz).
   • They contended that any Hindu claims of prior ownership or historical evidence did not negate their long-standing possession and religious use of the site.
3. Protection of Religious Rights:
   • Advocates emphasized the constitutional rights of Muslims to practice their religion and offered prayers at the Babri Masjid site.
   • They argued against any decision that would undermine the religious sentiments and practices of the Muslim community.
4. Secular Principles and Rule of Law:
   • Muslim parties highlighted the importance of secularism and the rule of law in resolving the dispute, urging the court to uphold these principles in its judgment.
   • They emphasized that any decision should be based on legal merit and not on religious beliefs or sentiments alone.

JUDGEMENT of The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute

The Supreme Court of India delivered its historic judgment on November 9, 2019, in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute case. Here are the key points from the judgment:

1. Title Suit Resolution:
   • The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya would be handed over to a trust for the construction of a Ram temple.
   • The court recognized the faith and belief of Hindus regarding the birthplace (Janmabhoomi) of Lord Ram at the disputed site as well as their continuous possession and worship.
2. Muslims Granted Alternate Land:
   • As part of the judgment, the Supreme Court directed the Central government to provide 5 acres of land at a prominent location in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque.
   • This decision aimed to ensure that both Hindu and Muslim communities could practice their faith and beliefs peacefully.
3. Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Report:
   • The court referred to the ASI report, which indicated the presence of a structure that resembled a Hindu temple beneath the Babri Masjid.
   • This archaeological evidence played a significant role in the court’s determination of the historical and religious significance of the disputed site.
4. The doctrine of Essential Practices:
   • The Supreme Court applied the doctrine of essential practices while considering the religious significance of the disputed site for both Hindus and Muslims.
   • It balanced the religious rights of both communities while ensuring that the judgment was based on legal principles and evidence.
5. Secularism and Rule of Law:
   • The judgment emphasized the importance of secularism and the rule of law in resolving religious disputes of national significance.
   • It aimed to uphold constitutional values and principles while addressing the complex historical and religious dimensions of the dispute.
6. Implementation:
   • Following the judgment, the Central government moved swiftly to set up the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust for the construction of the Ram temple.
   • Efforts were also initiated to allocate the alternate land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the mosque construction, thereby implementing the court’s directions.

Overall, the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case sought to bring closure to a longstanding dispute, emphasizing reconciliation, religious harmony, and adherence to the rule of law in India.