Rooted in evidence

Vikas Singh
Senior advocate, Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has handed down one of the most paramount judgments in Indian history. Unanimously delivered by a five-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, the verdict has paved the way for the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. The court also allotted five-acre land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. The verdict ends a long-standing dispute and turns over a new leaf for the country.

Five suits were filed by various parties, claiming the parcel of land at Ayodhya. The Muslim side claimed their right over the land on the basis of their long-standing possession. The Hindus claimed the land on the basis of their assertion that there was a temple at the site before the mosque was built, and their continued joint possession over the property. The Hindus also relied upon accounts of travellers who had seen large congregations of Hindus at the site during prominent festivals. The Skand Purana mentioned the birthplace of Lord Ram at this site, lending credence to the Hindus’ claim. 

The bone of contention was land measuring 1,500 square yards, where Babur purportedly constructed a mosque in 1528 (it was apparently built by Aurangzeb, as per history textbooks written by renowned historians). The disputed land was believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Muslims, through adverse possession, had claimed their right over the land by asserting that they used to offer namaz there from 1529 to 1949. However, they did not have evidence confirming the existence of a masjid or any structure at the site before 1529.

As per the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI’s) report, the mosque was not built on vacant land and there was evidence of a temple-like structure having existed there, as noted by the Bench. However, the court also noted that Muslims were dispossessed of the site of the mosque through violence and vandalism during communal riots in 1934, desecration on the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949, when idols were place inside the mosque, and finally, its demolition in 1992. Nevertheless, the court, exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, ensured that a wrong committed was remedied and stated that justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims deprived of the ‘structure of the mosque’ through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law.

A question repeatedly raised by the Supreme Court was regarding the birthplace of Lord Ram. In my submissions to the court, I placed various evidences by relying on the ASI report and other historical facts corroborating historical presence of the birthplace of Lord Ram at the disputed site and that there was proof of extensive worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard where the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi are located, before the annexation of Oudh (Awadh) by the British in 1857. The Muslims, however, failed to prove their frame of reference and offered no evidence to stipulate that they were in actual possession of the site and structure prior to 1857 since the date of construction.

Various scholars and travellers have specified the site of the birthplace of Lord Ram at Ayodhya. Joseph Tieffenthaler, in his book Description Historique Et Geographique De L’inde, determines this site. Tieffenthaler was a Jesuit father who came from Austria and visited Oudh between 1765 and 1772. He is the most important witness who confirms that Ram Janmabhoomi is the place whereupon once stood the disputed shrine. Another scholar, P Carnegie, in his work Ajudhia Mahatum, has mentioned about Ram’s birthplace and Sita Rasoi.

Our jurisprudence acknowledges even the right of a trespasser to remain in possession of property and he can be evicted only within the frame of law. The use of force has rightly been deprecated by the court. The court noted that the Hindus’ possession of the outer courtyard had been established. The judgment nevertheless concluded that the Sunni Central Waqf Board was unable to prove its claim of exclusive title and continuous possession of the disputed site, but the allotment of land to the Muslims is necessary for the restitution of the community for the unlawful destruction of their place of worship and that the ownership cannot be given on the basis of faith and trust.

In the judgment, the apex court enunciated that one community must not interfere with or dominate the freedom and beliefs of another community, stating that the facts, evidence and oral arguments of the case have traversed the realms of history, archaeology, religion and the law, and the law must stand apart from political contestations over history, ideology and religion since all religions, beliefs, worship and prayer are equal. The court drew parity among all citizens of the country, highlighting the very basis of the Constitution — equality.

The Ayodhya dispute has a lot in common with the Jerusalem issue. Both ancient cities have suffered at the hands of successive invaders. The history of Jerusalem is also lost in antiquity, tracing its past to Adam, the ‘first man’ who is believed to have lived there all his life. Jerusalem is central to the faith and identity of Jews, just as Ayodhya is synonymous with the Hindus.

Both the majority and minority judgment of 1994, upholding the acquisition of Ayodhya land, had expressed the hope that this issue be decided by mediation. The judgment competently achieves what mediation could have done. The court has decided the title not on the basis of faith or belief but firmly on the basis of evidence.

In order to maintain peace and perpetuate harmony among all religions, there could not have been a better verdict than this one. Posterity would remember the judges for having showed remarkable statesmanship while deciding this great case.