“THE

AYODHYA
VERDICT AND
AFTERMATH”

Sakaar
Srivastava
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.......................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION…...
…………………………………………………………………..2
BRIEF
TIMELINE……………………………………………………………………...3
THE
JUDGMENT……………………………………………………………………….5
THE
CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………….7
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted on the basis of secondary sources
including books, journals and internet sources. Primary sources
could not be explored due to limitation of subject and requisite
knowledge.

1 | Page
 INTRODUCTION

India is a secular country, comprising of eight prominent religions

namely Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism,
Zoroastrianism, and Judaism.1 The drafting committee of Indian
Constitution anticipated conflict of religious interest while drafting
it. Who knew, that three years after the independence and right in
the year when the Constitution of India was adopted, a religious
hue and cry would begin.

Ayodhya, a city located in the Faizabad district of Uttar Pradesh,

which is epically famous for the birth of Hindu divinity Lord Rama,
became the center of attraction for the infamous religious conflict
between Hindu Community and Muslim Community over
demolition of Babari Masjid. The issue revolves around the fact that
natural idols were found inside the Babari mosque situated in
Ayodhya, built at the time of ruling of Mughal leader, Babar. The
apprehension that a Lord Rama temple was demolished to build the
Babari mosque lead to a Hindu political rally, which demolished the
Babari Masjid and consequently resulted in riots killing 2000
people across India on 06 December 1992.

A case was filed in the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in 1950. Sixty
years after it went to the court, a three-judge bench comprising of
Justice S.U. Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice D.V. Sharma
with a 2:1 ruling pronounced that 2.77 acres of Ayodhya’s land
would be divided into three parts:
1. One-third going to the Ram Lalla represented by the Hindu
Maha Sabha (for construction of Ram Temple);
2. One-third going to Islamic Sunni Waqf Board; and
3. One-third going to Hindu religious domination Nirmohi
Akhara.

1 http://adaniel.tripod.com/religions.htm
2 | Page
The excavation suggested by the Archaeological Survey of India
were heavily relied on to find out that idols of Lord Rama were
found beneath the mosque and hence declaring that there was a
structure of a massive Hindu religious building on 30 September
2010.

3 | Page
 BRIEF TIMELINE

In the year 1949, idols of Lord Rama appear inside the Babri
Masjid. The then Government of India decides to lock the gates of
the premises;

In 1950, Lawsuit filed by Hindu community seeking permission for

Hindus to pray inside the Masjid. Court allowed Hindus to pray
inside but locked the inner courtyard;

In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara files case demanding possession of the

Masjid;

In 1961, Sunni Waqf Board files lawsuit demanding the removal of

the idols from mosque premises;

In 1984, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (“VHP”) initiates a campaign to

gather public support for Hindu access to the Babri Masjid;

In 1986, Faizabad court orders gates to be opened for Hindus to

offer prayers, Babri Mosque Action Committee (“BMAC”) formed to
settle the issue;

In 1989, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi allows VHP to perform

groundbreaking ceremony close to the disputed site;

In 1990, Senior Bhartiya Janta Party (“BJP”) leader L.K.

Advani Rath Yatra towards Ayodhya stopped and he's arrested in
Samastipur, Bihar;

In 1992, Babri Masjid demolished by BJP, VHP and RSS Kar Sevaks,
makeshift temple constructed; Communal riots erupt across the

4 | Page
country, killing 2,000 people, PV Narasimha Rao-
led Congress government sets up a commission of enquiry under
Justice M.S. Liberhan;

In 2003, Allahabad high court asks Archaeological Survey of India

(“ASI”) to excavate the disputed site, ASI submits report saying
findings indicated the presence of a tenth century temple beneath
the mosque, All India Muslim Personal Law Board said it will
challenge the ASI report;

In 2010, Allahabad high court rules for a three-way division of the

disputed land; Land allotted to Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara
and Rama Lalla represented by the Hindu Mahasabha;

In 2016, Supreme Court permits Subramanian Swamy to intervene

in pending matters, Swamy proposes Ram temple to be built at the
disputed site, while the mosque be constructed on the other side of
Sarayu river;

In 2017, Supreme Court pushes for an amicable solution through

negotiations between concerned parties.

5 | Page
 THE JUDGMENT

The Lucknow bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court dealt with
one of the most critical religious and constitutional cases. With the
order that runs into over 8,000 pages, HC has said that the portion
below the central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and
other Gods are placed in a makeshift temple, belongs to Hindus. All
three judges agreed that the portion under the central dome should
be allotted to Hindus.2

Justice S.U. Khan dissented with the opinions of Justice Sudhir

Agarwal and Justice D.V. Sharma that that the disputed structure
was a mosque and that a temple was demolished to build a mosque.
Justice SU Khan held that no temple was demolished for
constructing the mosque at the disputed structure. He said the
mosque was constructed under orders of Babar over the ruins of
temples lying in that state for a very long time.
The judgment observed that the idols were placed beneath the
central dome early on December 23, 1949.

The court dismissed two major claims to the land - one filed in 1989
on behalf Ram Lalla, or the infant Lord Ram, and the second by the
Sunni Waqf Board filed in 1961.
The Sunni Waqf Board has said it does not agree with today's
judgment and will appeal in the Supreme Court against it.

The chairman of the Sri Ram Janmbhoomi Trust, Nritya Gopal Das,
too said they would challenge the decision to provide one-third of
the disputed land to the Sunni Waqf Board in the Supreme Court.

2 https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/ayodhya-verdict-allahabad-high-court-says-
divide-land-in-3-ways-433808

6 | Page
The dispute before the court was whether the 2.7 acres of disputed
land on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on
December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni Central Waqf Board or to
the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.

It has been a protracted legal battle, and people across the country
have spoken in one voice on the need to maintain peace and
harmony.

In 2017, The Supreme Court has constituted a three-judge bench

headed by Justice Dipak Misra to hear a batch of petitions
challenging the Allahabad high court verdict in the Ayodhya land
dispute case from August 11. The bench, whose other members are
Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, would adjudicate the
dispute over ownership of Ram temple-Babri masjid land.

On July 21, a bench headed by Chief Justice J.S. Khehar had said
that it would soon take a decision to list the matter for early
hearing. The court’s remark had come on a plea of BJP leader
Subramanian Swamy who sought urgent listing and hearing of the
matter.

Swamy had said that the main appeals against the Allahabad high
court order are pending for the last seven years in the apex court
and these required urgent hearing. He had also said that a
separate petition had earlier been filed by him seeking enforcement
of his right to worship without much hassle at the site.

7 | Page
8 | Page
 THE CONCLUSION

Whether it was mosque on demolished temple, or mosque on

ruined temple, or mosque on ruined home, or mosque on ruined
mosque on ruined temple, or mosque on ruined mosque on
demolished temple, cannot be ascertained on the basis of radar
scan.

Which is fine, because, the history is irrelevant to the case. The

Supreme Court ought to set aside myths of the birth of an avatar,
and dubious archaeological reports, and treat the matter as a
dispute over property rights. In such a dispute, it is difficult to
envision the infant Rama as a beneficiary. The property ought to be
divided unequally between the Waqf board and the Akhara (since
squatters gain some rights if they occupy land for long enough).
This would return the site to the status quo of the 19th century
with one difference: no mosque stands on the spot any longer.

At that point, a BJP government could use eminent domain to take

over the land and construct the temple it’s been promising for
decades. Or a secular government could build a hospital there; on
the basis that Ayodhya’s Hindus and Muslims have plenty of places
to pray, but inadequate health care. But neither secular parties nor
religious will make such a move. The secular parties are weak and
scared, while the BJP prefers to keep the pot of the public’s
emotions simmering.

Who can blame them for indecisiveness when the nation’s highest
court is reluctant to pronounce verdict on a property dispute?3

3 https://scroll.in/article/832528/the-ayodhya-evasion-why-is-the-supreme-court-
reluctant-to-pronounce-verdict-on-a-property-dispute

9 | Page