NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Speech notes

Opening remarks: A talk on the subject is necessary for the following

reasons:

1. This decision though applies to all the citizens of India, its impact and
relevance will be more felt by the present and future generations.

2. Their understanding of this judgement is therefore important.

3. Going by what they perceive or know youth of India based on their

mind-set have differing views ranging from a correct understanding
and touching the two extremes of being too liberal or too fanatical.

4. The Faith over one's religion across the world is undergoing changes
and the impact is no different in India and becomes an added
dimension in understanding this judgement.

5. This talk is a humble attempt to place on record how the Hon’ble SC

had dealt with this issue with great dexterity and poise and rendered
its findings based on equity and good conscience.

6. A Litigation spanning 3 centuries (later half of the 19th century, the

20th century and the first quarter of 21st century, has been resolved.)
Neither Political Governance, nor Executive Administration, nor policy
makers, nor social thinkers could find the solution. The matter
therefore fell into the domain of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which
pronounced its Judgement on the 09.11.2019.

1
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

7. The Hon’ble SC had laid the foundation for peace and harmony and
this talk attempts to highlight those aspects and allow the younger
generations from both the communities to take it forward.

Thanks giving

a. Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of the 5

Hon’ble Judges - CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde,
Justice Dananjay Y Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and
Justice S Abdul Nazeer.

b. Mediation panel comprising of – Hon’ble Justice FM Ibrahim Kalifulla,

Sri Sri Ravishankar and Shri Sriram Panchu.

c. To the Legend and veteran K. Parasaran sir, CS Vaidyanathan sir,

who led the side of Lord Rama and Shri. Rajeev Dhawan and Mr
Zafaryab Gilani who led the side for Babri Masjid.

d. Religious and mainstream social leaders representing both the

communities.

e. The entire security service in all forms for maintenance of law and
order and internal security.

Part I – Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.

i. Page 756 – Court is called to determine the legal consequences

arising out of thousands of years of prayer, contest, construction
and the destruction at the disputed site.

2
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

ii. Page 756 – The Courts of today cannot take cognizance of

historical rights and wrongs unless it is shown that their legal
consequences are enforceable in the present, it is important to
consider the extent to which acts done and rights accrued under
the previous legal regimes have legal consequences today under
our present laws.

iii. Page 757 – The judgment had classified the periods into 4
categories –
a. The Vikramadithya and the Pre-Mughal Period up to 1525
b. The Mughal period up to 1858.
c. The Colonial rule up to 1947
d. The Post-Independence Period – after 1947.

iv. Page 766 – The legal consequences of actions taken, proprietary

rights perfected or injuries suffered in the previous legal regimes
can only be enforced by this court if they receive implied or express
recognition by subsequent sovereigns. In absence of such
recognition, the change of sovereignty is an Act of State and this
Court cannot compel a subsequent Sovereign to recognize and
remedy historical wrongs.

v. Page 767 – The mere existence of a structure underneath the

disputed property cannot lead to a legally enforceable claim to title
today, since for 400 years there has been a Mosque over it.

vi. Page 769 – Interplay of articles 296 and 372.

3
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

vii. Page 787 – The common underlying thread is that justice equity
and good conscience, plays a supplementary role in enabling
courts to mould the relief to suit the circumstances that present
themselves before courts with the principle purpose of ensuring a
just outcome. This has often found form in the part of the court to
craft relief that is both legally sustainable and just.

Part II – Places of Worship Act, 1991

i. There is a general perception and rumours doing the rounds that

what had happened in Ram Janma Bhoomi can happen also in Kashi
and Mathura and the Hindus will make this into a demand. Such an
assumption is legally incorrect, in view of the Places of Worship Act,
1991.

ii. The essence and purpose of this Act is to prohibit conversion of any
place of worship as it existed on 15.08.1947. Sec 5 of the Act excludes
the Ram Janma Bhoomi dispute from the purview of the Act, thus
necessitating the court to decide and pronounce its views.

PART III

i. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court delivered its Judgment on
30.09.2010, comprising of Justices SU Khan, Justice Sudhir Aggarwal
and Justice DV Sharma delivered its verdict after examining the
evidence before it comprising of 533 exhibits, deposition of 87

4
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

witnesses, traversing 13990 pages and over 1000 reference books in

Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Persian, Turkish, French and English, ranging
from subjects as diverse as, history, culture, archaeology and religion.

ii. As far as the disputed site is concerned, Allahabad High Court held –
- Justice Sudhir Aggarwal and Justice DV Sharma held that
the disputed structure is the Janmasthan of Lord Rama as
per the Faith and Belief of Hindus and should belong to
them.

- Justice SU Khan declared that the disputed portion should

be allotted to the Hindus in the final Decree.

- Consequently all the three learned judges had held that

disputed place should belong to the Hindus.

iii. Justice Sudhir Aggarwal and Justice SU Khan directed that the entire
site should be divided into 3 (1/3rd each for the Hindus, Muslims, and
for Nirmohi Akhara)

Part IV – Whether Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Babur

i. Page 103 – Supreme Court has resolved the controversy by holding

that when neither the Hindus nor the Muslims dispute that the
Mosque was built in 1528, by or at the behest of Babur, the issue
therefore need not be gone into as the same is not contested.

5
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Part V – Characteristics of a Mosque in Islamic Law

i. The Hindu side raised an issue, whether Babri Masjid would qualify
as a mosque. The Supreme Court held that a court as a secular
institution set up under a Constitutional Regime must steer clear from
choosing one amongst the many possible interpretations of theological
doctrines and must refer to safer course accepting the Faith and Belief
of the worshipper. And Islam is no exception. Cultural assimilation in
a pluralistic society cannot be construed as a feature destructive of
religious doctrine.

iv. The SC further held that ‘Our Court was founded and owes its
existence to a Constitutional Order. We must firmly reject any attempt
to lead the court to interpret religious doctrine in an absolute and
extreme form and question the Faith of worshippers. Nothing would
be as destructive of the values underlying Art 25 of the constitution.

Part VI – Archaeological Report

i. Page 522 – the summary of results showed that, it was over the
construction during the 16th century, the disputed structure was
constructed directly resting over it. There is sufficient proof of
existence of a massive and monumental structure having a
minimum dimension of 50:30 mts, in the North-south : East-west
directions, just below the disputed structure.

6
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

ii. Page 523 – the area below the disputed structure that remained a
place for public use for a long time, till the Mughal level, when the
disputed structure was built, which was confined to a limited area.

iii. Page 524 – ASI finally concluded that the remains indicate distinct
features found associated with temples of North India.

Page 533 – The High Court concluded that it was not in dispute that no
Islamic religious artefacts were found during excavation, while artefacts
pertaining to Hindu religious origin were found in abundance.

PART VII - Findings by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the report filed
by the Archaeological Survey of India

i. Page 575 – The process of drawing inferences from a data is an

essential element of archaeology as a discipline, but to reject this
exercise as conjecture and hypothetical would be a disservice both
to the discipline and to the underlying process, especially when the
independence of the ASI team is not under question.

ii. Page 579 – It rejected the stand that the underlying structure
below the disputed site is an Islamic structure. The underlying
structure was not of an Islamic Origin. It also did not go to
subscribe the view that the mosque was built on the foundation of
a demolished Idga (place set apart for public prayers by Muslims).

7
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

iii. Page 594 – 595 - On the other hand, it upheld the findings of
Justice Sudhir Aggarwal who concluded the following:
a. Mosque was not constructed on a vacant land. There was an
underlying structure.
b. The underlying structure was not of Islamic origin.
c. The Foundation of the disputed structure rested on the walls of
the underlying structure.

iv. Page 595 – 596 - Caveats by the Supreme Court

a. Though the excavations have revealed the existence of a circular
shrine, conceivably a Shiva shrine dating back to the 7th to the
9th Century AD, belongs to the 12th Century AD. A circular
shrine and the underlying pillar belong to two different time
periods – three centuries apart.

b. There is no specific finding that the underlying structure was a

temple dedicated to Lord Ram.

c. ASI has not specifically opined on weather a temple was

demolished for construction of the disputed structure.

v. Page 597 – The High Court expressed difficulty to conclude

whether a structure was demolished or not. Especially when ASI
has refrained from recording a specific finding, the High Court
concluded that it could have been either a natural calamity or a
demolition.

vi. Page 598 – Supreme Court confirmed the ASI Report, that the site
and the nature of the structure was of a Hindu religious origin.

8
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

vii. Page 683 – 684 – The Supreme Court stated that the account by
Tieffen Thaler is of significant value when it is comes to the
existence of Faith and Belief of Hindus in Lord Ram and of the
association of the Place of Birth in close proximity to the three
domed structure where a square box was worshipped as
symbolising the cradle of birth. The account has a reference to the
form of worship by circumbulation and to the assembly of devotees
at site.

viii. Page 688 – The Supreme Court holds Carnegy’s account refers to
three religious sites including the Janmasthan. His account has
attributed the construction of the mosque to Babur on the site of
the Janmasthan which he states, marks the place where
Ramachander was born.

Part VII – Demolition Theory and the rejection of the views of 4

historians

(The aspect of demolition of the temple for building the mosque and
subsequent demolition in 1991 will not be referred in the talk since it
would not make both sides happy. This portion is captured only for
continuity and will be handled carefully should a need arise and not
otherwise)

i. Page 579 - It is important to Highlight – SC uses the expression

“WOULD POSTULATE THAT THE MOSQUE WAS BUILT ON THE
FOUNDATION OF A DEMOLISHED IDGA” but whereas after

9
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

concluding that the underlying structure was only a temple,

proceeds to hold that “WHETHER THE MOSQUE WAS BUILT
AFTER DEMOLISHING THE TEMPLE WAS NOT CLEAR”, in the
absence of a clear view by the ASI.

ii. Page 593 – 594 - The Supreme Court rejected the assumptions
drawn by Justice SU Khan of the Allahabad High Court, especially
his reason that in case of a temple had been demolished for
constructing a mosque, the super structure of the temple, would
not have gone inside the ground. This again is a pure conjuncture.
It also rejected the view that only due to natural calamity materials
go down inside the ground.
iii. Page 667 – Tieffen Thaler’s travels to Ayodhya after 1740, makes a
reference to the Faith of Hindu devotees and contains a reference
to the alleged demolition, in his opinion it is most likely to have
been at the hands of Aurangazeb and the erection of the Mosque
on the site which is believed to be the birth place of Lord Rama.

iv. Page 682 – The Supreme Court records that Tieffen Thaler states
that the temple was demolished by Aurangazeb and was replaced
with a Mosque and makes a specific reference to the demolition by
Aurangazeb of the fortress called Ramkot and to the construction
of a Muslim temple with three domes at the same place.

v. Page 683 – His account also refers to the presence of a square box
raised 5 inches above the ground. With a length of more than 5 ells
and the maximum width of 4 ells which the Hindus believed it to
be the cradle or Bedi where Vishnu was born in the form of Lord
Rama. The text goes on to say though Aurangazeb or Babur got

10
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

this place destroyed, the text contains an observation that in the

place where the native house of Ram exists, where the Hindus go
around three times and prostrate on the floor. There is a reference
to the gathering of devotees during the chaithra month.

vi. Page 700 – Supreme Court concludes that historical evidence,

travelogues and gazetteers reflect opinions on matters which are
not amenable to be tested by cross examination at this distant
point of time. Historical accounts cannot be regarded as
conclusive.

vii. Page 706 – Supreme Court rejects the view of the four historians.

Part VIII – Findings based on the evidence and contentions raised from
the Muslim side:

i. Page 791 (Para 678) – There is no evidence to indicate the mosque

after construction was used for offering Namaz till 1856-1857. This
position has been admitted by the Muslims both before the High
Court and the Supreme Court.

ii. Page 792 – 793 (Para 679) – Extract of register Mafiat dated
13.03.1860 and 29.06.1860 show the name of Babur as the
donor/grantee. The High Court rejects this on the ground that it’s
a torn document and the contents are illegible. The knowledge or
the date of grant or the order and the date are not known.

11
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

iii. Page 67 - Justice Aggarwal refers to the letter which notes that
previously the symbol of Janmasthan was in existence for 100s of
years and Hindus have performed pooja. (Genuineness of which
including the person who had written not disputed.) This
document therefore becomes an admission to prove that Hindus
had continuously offered prayers inside the disputed building.

iv. Page 794 – 795 - Conversion of cash Nankar Grant into grant of
revenue free land. In 1864 British govt. converted the Cash Nankar
into a grant of revenue free land and a certificate of grant was
executed in favour of Rajab Ali and Mohammed Asghar. The
Supreme Court rejected this evidence holding that the lineage of
Rajab Ali traceable Mir Baqi was not proved and there is no
material to indicate the basis for such a grant in the previous
history of 325 years. Evidence set up by 4th generation with no
evidence on record for the intervening period of three centuries is
unacceptable. In any view this document would only indicate, that
the British government provided financial assistance for the
maintenance of the Mosque but there is no evidence to prove, that
Namaz was offered there.

v. Page 797 – 798 – Nakal Khasra Abadi – in 1931 entry in the above
register - Nazul Register - Records the presence of Babri Masjid
and the document also specifically notes that the Ram Chabutra
was famous as the birth place of Rama.

vi. Page 799 – 801 – Complaint lodged on 30.11.1858 by Syed

Mohammed Khatib (Moazzin of Babri Masjid) in which it is stated
‘previously the symbol of Janmasthan had been there and

12
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

Hindus did pooja’. He prayed for spot inspection, demolition of the

new construction and Hindus be ousted of the Masjid, idols be
removed, and the writings on the wall be washed.

A contest was made on the document translation. The

document translation read as follows – ‘Previously the symbol of
Janmasthan had been there for 100s of years and Hindus did
pooja.’ This translation was contested to mean ‘the fact that
Masjid is a place of worship of the Muslims and not the
contrary position, the previously the symbol of Janmasthan
had been there or 100s of years and Hindus used to perform
pooja’. The Supreme Court declared the ‘words and not the
contrary position’ are contrived and militates against the
tenor of the letter.

vii. Page 808 – Allowing the Hindus to open an additional access door
on the northern side in 1877 so that they are not at the mercy of
the Muslims goes to show the presence of the worship of the
Hindus at the Janmasthan and the administration has in fact
recognised the same.

viii. Page 810 – 812 – In 1885 even though the Sub Judge declined
permission to construct a temple which was affirmed by the
District Judge and Judicial Commissioner, it carried the
observations and views that unfortunately mosque has been
constructed on a site which the Hindus attributed as the
Birthplace of Rama and breach of status quo at this stage was
undesirable, and therefore this will not stand as res judicata in
deciding the present suit.

13
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

ix. Page 69 – 70 - The order of the Sub-Judge dated 24.12.1985, held

that erection of railings was made to enable Muslims to offer
prayers inside and Hindus outside. The area to visit the mosque
and the temple was the same, but the place where Hindus offered
worship was in their possession and that could be no dispute on
ownership.

x. Page 70 – the Dist. Judge dismissing the appeal on 26.03.1886

held that it was most unfortunate that the masjid should have
been built on the land especially held sacred by the Hindus and
since construction had been made 358 years ago, it is too late to
reverse the process.

xi. Page 70 – 71 – The Judicial commissioner of Oudh dismissing the

second appeal on 1.11.1886, held

a. Inappropriate to allow the parties to disturb the status quo esp

when a mosque has been in existence for 350 years, owing to
the bigotry and tyranny of emperor Babur who purposely chose
this holy spot according to the Hindu legend as the site of this
mosque.

b. Entry to the mosque was through the access points namely two
entrance gates on north and east to the outer courtyard.

xii. Page 830 – there is evidence on record to hold that Muslims

offered Friday Namaz at the mosque and have not completely lost

14
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

access to or abandoned the disputed property. (This is based on

the happenings between 1934 and 1949)

xiii. Page 836 – On a preponderance of probabilities the findings of the

High Court that the idols of the deities were installed in the
intervening night of the 22/23 December 1949, commends itself for
our acceptance.

xiv. Page 843 – the existence of Wakf can be legally recognised in

situations where property has been the subject of public religious
use since time immemorial. It is called the Wakf by user in the
absence of express deed of dedication or declaration. The court
held that the Muslim side was unable show such a use.

xv. Page 853 – The Court concluded that Muslims did not have
possession over the outer courtyard and there is lack of adequate
evidence to establish that there was exclusive or unimpeded use of
the inner courtyard after 1858.
xvi. Page 867 - Doctrine Of Lost Grant – Court will not presume a lost
grant in cases where there was no person who could ever have
made such a grant or where there was no person or persons
competent to receive such a grant. Secondly this doctrine will not
apply if evidence is shown for possession or a claim to a land which
is under use. This applies only to such cases to secure the
possession of those who have been in quiet possession.

xvii. Page 884 - In determining the nature of use, the court has to
factor in the length and the extent of use and the claim to the title

15
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

will have to be judged from the perspective of long and continued

possession.

xviii. Page 85 – 87 - Reliance was placed on three inscriptions: Justice

Sudhir Aggarwal at page 85 records – that the inscriptions stood as
the sole basis that Babur has installed the mosque as referred to in
gazattees and other documents.
a. The first document was the text by Fuhrer titled – ‘the Sharqi
Architecture of Jaunpur’. Org. Edtn. 1889 reprint in 1994 by
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). Page 87 – Interestingly
Fuhrer refers that the old temple of Ramachandra at the
Janmasthan must have been a very fine one, for many of its
columns have been used by the Musalmans in the construction
of Babri Masjid.

b. Second Inscription was that of Beveridge.

c. The Third was an inscription published in Epigraphia Indica –

Arabic – Persian Supplement published by Director General
ASI.

xix. Page 92 - 93 - The evidence in all the three inscriptions could not
pass the muster since,

a. Fuhrer’s inscriptions refer to the construction of the mosque in

1523 a period prior to Babur’s visit to Ayodhya.

16
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

b. As far as inscriptions of Beveridge it was held that she has

neither seen the original text nor has she translated the
inscriptions herself.

c. The third was held to be a fallacy and complete

misrepresentation in publishing a text under the authority of
ASI, without regard to its accuracy, correctness and
genuineness and the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s
decision is not without basis.

xx. Page 94 – 96 – Fourth Inscription was introduced by the Shia

Wakf Board placing reliance on Baburnama and it was found that
the records for the period 2.4.1528 – 17.09.1528 are missing.
(Babur reached Ayodhya on 28.03.1528)

xxi. Pages 100 – 101 – In the light of the above the HC proceeded to
hold that there is no clarity regarding who had built the mosque
and the informed guess suggests that it was constructed by
Aurangazeb between 1659 -1707.

Part IX –Findings based on the evidence and contentions from the

Hindus side - Page 836-923

i. The contention that the temple was outside the courtyard is

ambiguous and contrary to the evidence.

17
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

ii. There is consistent usage and pattern of worship by the Hindus

outside the courtyard and there is no material to show or prove
Muslims have possesed or used it except for gaining access.

iii. The right for the Hindus is not prescriptive to enter for the purpose
of worship. It is for possession and occupation in lieu of the
following:
1. The exclusive presence of Hindu places of worship in the
disputed property which lay beyond the railings.

2. Evidence of worship by Hindus at these places of worship.

3. Recognition by the administration of the need to open an

additional entry gate during 1877 on the Northern side
occasioned by the large presence of devotees.

4. Absence of any evidence to indicate that the Muslims had

asserted any right of possession or occupation over the area
of the disputed property beyond the railing.

5. Occurrence of incidence during which the use of the mosque

inside the railing became contentious

6. Report of the Wakf inspector complaining that the Muslims

being obstructed in proceeding to the Mosque for Namaz.

7. Access to outer area of the disputed property beyond the

railing being exclusively with the Hindus.

18
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

8. The land locked nature of the area inside the railing.

9. Page 882 – The immediate setting up of Ram Chabutra by the

Hindus right outside the three domed structure upon the
setting up of the railing.

10. The continued assertion of rights to the inner courtyard.

11. Offering of worship by devotees towards the Garbhagraha

standing outside the railing.

12. Page 883 – In the absence of historical records with respect

to ownership or title, the court has to determine the nature
and use of the disputed premises as a whole by either of the
parties.

13. The access of Hindus to and their possession of the outer

courtyard was unimpeded. For the Hindus, the entire
complex as a whole was of religious significance.
14. The use of the area within the railings by the Muslims was
contentious and their access to the inner courtyard was
land locked. The only access being through the two gates
to the outer portion and the area which were under the
control of the Hindus.

15. Page 892 – It cannot be said that Muslims have been able to
establish their possessory right to the disputed site as a
composite whole.

19
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

16. Page 900 – Travelogues – Conspicuous in both the accounts

(Finch and Tieffen Thaler) are references to the worships by
the Hindus of Lord Ram. The positive account of Hindu
worship of Lord Ram is of probative value.

17. The Collector Faziabad had deposed that the three revenue
settlements of the years 1861, 1893-94 and 1936-37 has
classified it as Nazul land and the disputed site has been
mentioned as Janmasthan and had classified at places as
Ram Janma Bhumi.

18. When interpolations were found as Janmasthan masjid or

Jamma masjid, these were found and reports sent and were
not corrected because of the pendency of the matter.

19. Admittedly it is classified as Nazul land (Land owned by

government), UP Government gave up its claim and the court
could therefore decide its ownership between the two
contesting claimants.

20. Page 841 – Fair Admissions from the Muslim side that they
are unable to establish any specific grant of the land as a
foundation of a legal title either prior to the annexation of
Oudh or transfer of power after colonial administration in
1857.

20
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

PART X: Final Reliefs:

1. Page 914 – The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the
Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law.

2. Page 923 – It allotted to the Hindus 1500 square yards and as a

restitution for the Muslim community for the unlawful destruction of
their place of worship, direction to allot a land measuring 5 acres to
the Sunni Central Wakf board either by the state government or
central government within the city of Ayodhya and both of the
handing over should be conducted simultaneously.

PART XI: Faith and Belief of the Hindus - Holy, Sacred birth place of
Lord Rama.

i. After going through the decision Question would arise that the SC has
decided the case as a title suit of an immovable property, then what
happens to the Sanctity, Faith and Belief of the Hindus?

ii. In fact, both Shri Parasaran and Shri Vaidyanathan pursued a very
important legal plea, when sacred idols are considered to be juristic
personalities and properties associated to it are considered to be
properties of juristic person, should not a place of Faith and Belief
become a juristic person? Whether a sacred place of worship should
constitute a juristic person?

21
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

iii. The Hon’ble SC decided the issue tactically by holding that a sacred
piece of land would not constitute a juristic personality since the court
would oust the jurisdiction of the Muslims from arguing the matter any
further.

iv. SC which is guided by the constitution, which is secular in nature had

to do a balancing act, it therefore rejected the plea of the Hindus and
went on to decide the matter purely as a title suit.

v. This therefore would lead to a question what happens to the status of

this sacred place, the holy place the birth of Lord Rama. The
unanimous verdict did not approach the matter from Faith and Belief
since the contesting claimants were two different religions and wanted
to approach it only in a secular way.

vi. However one of the learned judges have authored an addendum which
dealt with only this aspect and had concluded that it is indeed the birth
place of Lord Ram and the Belief and Faith of the Hindus deserved to be
accepted. The learned judge came to the conclusion that this Faith and
Belief have existed for time immemorial by referring to the following
evidences. It is important to highlight that all these evidences were
placed before the High Court, depositions recorded, cross
examination conducted, which crystalized into findings of fact by
the High Court. It is these facts which have been relied upon by
the learned judge to conclude a view in favour of the Hindu and in
the process upholding the decision of the High Court.

22
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

⮚ Faith and Belief of Hindus established prior to 1528:

i. Pg. 90, in Brihad-Dharmottara purana Ayodhya is referred to as one

of the holiest 7 cities along with Mathura, Maya (Haridwar), Kashi,
Kanchi, Avantica(Ujjain), and Dwarna.

ii. Pg. 23, Reliance had been placed on Skanda purana, Vasihnava
khanda, Ayodhya Mahatmya specifically.

iii. Pg. 23, Valmiki Ramayana refers to Ayodhya as the birth place of
Rama who was born at the place of king Dasharatha

iv. Pg. 23, Ramcharitmanasa by Tulsi Das also reiterates this position
with a detail that same is celebrated on Chaitranavami
Shuklapaksha every year.

v. Pg. 33-35, details found in Skandapuranam

a. Shlokas, section-VIII deals with Ayodhya Mahatmya and
section IX deals with Vasudeva mahatmya
b. The translated version of Ayodhya mahatmya is in chapter 10
containing 87 shlokas of which Shlokas 18-25 are relevant
which indicate the place of birth of Lord Rama.

c. It is said that the place of birth is situated to the east of

Vigneshwara, the north of Vashishta and to the west of
Lomas.

d. Only by visiting this place one can get rid of rebirth.

23
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

e. On the Navami day the man should observe the holy vow and
through the power of holy bath and charitable gifts he is
liberated from the bondage of births.

f. By seeing the place of birth one attains the merits of ascetics,

performing penance in hermitage, of thousands of ‘rajasuya’
sacrifices and ‘agnihotra’ sacrifices performed every year.

g. By observing sacred rites particularly at the holy place of

birth, he obtains the merit of the holy man endowed with
devotion to their mother and father as well as perceptors.

vi. Pg 38-39, reference from Skandapuranam, Bhagwan Vedavyasa,

had described the importance of Ayodhya in this kanda and had
said:

a. Yatra of Shri Rama in Ayodhya commences from the 3rd

navratra of chaitra month

b. High ascetics and devoted persons live in the western side of

Ram Jhanmabhoomi, the land known as Pindarak.

c. Worship of Pindarak should be done after taking bath in

sarayu river.

d. Worship of God Ganesha is performed in the western side for

removing hurdles.

24
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

e. Ram Janmbhoommi is situated at the north eastern

corner. This land which provides salvation is called
Janmabhoomi or Janmastan.

f. Vashistakund is in the east of Vigneshwara.

g. Ram Janmabhoomi is in the north side of Vashishtakund.

h. One should meditate Janmastan in the western part of Lomas

ashram.

vii. Pg 41, one of the witnesses had confirmed that the higher officer
Shri Edward during the time of British rule had fixed stone boards
with the serial prescribed in skandapurana showing the
geographical location.

viii. Pg -42 In the cross examination he had considered that he had

seen 5-6 stone boards at the Janmasthan of Ram Janmabhoomi,
Pindarak, Lomas, Vignesh, and Vashishtabhoomi

ix. Pg 43, learned judge of the Supreme Court at Para 49 held that
witnesses had clearly proved that the location of the Ram
Janamabhoomi as per the Ayodhya mahatyma of skandapurana.

x. Pg - 52, the court rejected the opinions of the 4 historians on

Ayodhya mahatmya written during the end of the 18th and the
beginning of the 19th century and held it unacceptable in light of
the evidence, the depositions which has also withstood cross

25
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

examination (it is important to highlight even the unanimous

verdict had rejected the report of the 4 historians)

xi. Pg 65-66, it thus found that for the period prior to 1528 there was
sufficient religious texts to prove the Belief that the site of Ram
Janmabhoomi is the birth place of Lord Rama.

⮚ Faith and Belief during the period 1528 AD to 31.10.1858 –

i. Pg 66 and 67, Tulsidas Ramayana, which narrates the Avatara of

Vishnu as Lord Rama at Ayodhya and born as one of the four
children to king Dasharatha.

ii. Pg 77 and 78, second volume of A-in-I-Akbari (16th century work)

at Pg. 182 states, “Ayodhya was the residence of Lord
Ramachandra who in the Tretayuga combined in his own person
both the spiritual supremacy and kingly.”

iii. Pg 78 - 79, Vol.3, chap.6 of book contains a heading “the 18

sciences and the description refers to vedas and 18 puranas and
other religious texts.

iv. Pg 79, the book also refers to the 9 Avatars of Lord Vishnu and
with reference to Ramavatar says “he was accordingly born during
the yuga on the 9th of the night half of the month of chaitra
(March-April) in the city of Ayodhya of Kousalya, wife of Raja
Dasharatha

26
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

v. William finch (1607-1611 AD) – mentioned about the ruins of the

Ramachandra castle and houses. The travel accounts also noticed
the Belief of Indians that Ramachandra was born who took flesh
upon himself.

vi. Pg. 81, Father Joseph Tieffen Thaler (1766-1771), (Latin work),
wherein there is a reference to demolition of the temple by
emperor Aurangazeb and the construction of the triple dome
mosque at the same place.

a. The debris of the pillars were made skilfully and brought from
the island of Lance or Selendip(Ceylon) by Hanuman, the king
of monkeys.

b. On the left is seen a square box raised 5 inches above the

ground, with borders and of line with a length of more than 5
ells and a maximum width of 4 ells. The Hindus called it
“bidis”, that is the “cradle”

c. Pg. 82, Aurangazeb or Babur according to others got this place

raised and denied devotion.

d. Pg. 82, In the place where the native place of Ram existed, they
go around 3 times and prostrate on the floor.

vii. The gazettes of 1828, 1838, and 1854 again refer to the reputed
sites dedicated to Ram, Sita, Laxman, and Hanuman. It had
further noticed pilgrimage to Ayodhya or chiefly of the Ramata sect,

27
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

who walked round the temples and idols, bathe in the holy pools
and perform the customary ceremonies.

viii. Book Hadith-e-Sehab, written by Mirza Jaan, 1856, pg. 85, which
records the following:

● This place is called the seat of father of Lord Rama.

● Place of idol worshipping at site here were demolished not

leaving a single idol. This place had a big temple.

● The place of worship is called birth place of Rama, and the

place adjacent to it is called ‘Sita ki rasoi’.

⮚ Evidence in the colonial era 1858:

1. Pg 87-88, the Hon’ble Court concluded that various gazettes issued by

the British government refers this holy place as “mosque Janmastan” or
“Janmastan mosque” indicating clearly that the government officers
that time always treated the mosque as situated in Janmasthan.

2. Pg 88-89, historical sketch prepared by Carnegy, officiating officer and

settlement officer of Ayodhya who states in his sketch “Ayodhya is to
Hindu, what Mecca is to the Mohammedan and Jerusalem to Jews”

28
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

3. There is a reference to Janmasthan wherein it is stated that it is at the

place of Janmasthan, Babur has built a mosque in 1528.

4. ASI Report in 1889 which states “the owned temple of Ramachandra at

Janmasthan must have been a fine one for many of its columns have
been used by Musalmans in the construction of the Babri masjid.”

5. Pg. 90-91, The ASI report 1889 clearly states “Babur’s masjid at
Ayodhya was built on the very spot where the old temple of
Janmasthan of Ramachandra was standing”

6. Pg. 91, ASI report on monumental antiquities and inscriptions in the

north westerns provinces and Oudh by a Fuhrer states, it is
mentioned that Lord Rama was born there. The report refers that
Janmasthan temple was demolished and a masjid was constructed
in Hijri

7. Gazette issued in the year 1921 (Pg. 169 of gazettes), under the heading
history, chapter 5, records the fact that there was a fight between
Hindus and Muslims for the Janmasthan. Hindus considered it sacred,
the Bairagis ceasing and holding to it.

29
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

8. Pg. 95, the two applications filed in February and March 1861 by
Muslims admitted the fact that the Hindus were worshiping in the
premises of the mosque and the puja being performed.

9. Pg. 97-98, the orders issued on 3.4.1897, and the later appellate order
by deputy commissioner confirmed that the Hindus were visiting the
Janmasthan which was within the mosque of the Muslims, the appeal
of the Muslims were dismissed.

10. Pg. 113 - 116, based on the above the learned judge of the Hon’ble SC
court held as follows:

a. The evidence on record clearly proves Faith and Belief of

Hindus that Janmasthan of Lord Rama is the place where
Babri mosque has been constructed.

b. The 3 dome structure was treated as birth place of Lord Rama.

People worship this 3 dome structure and offer Parikrama in
the entire premises.

c. The gazettes issued by the British categorically and

unanimously state that it is at the Janmasthan of Lord Rama,
Babri mosque was constructed by Babur.

d. In the absence of any proof to the contrary and in absence of

any contrary evidence been let in, the conclusion that place of
birth of Lord Rama is the 3 dome structure be reached.

30
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

e. The sequence of events as noticed above clearly indicate that

Faith and Belief of Hindus was that, the birth place of Lord
Rama was under the 3 dome structure which was constructed
at the Janmasthan.

f. It was only during the British rule, iron wall was constructed,
in view of which worship started in the outer courtyard.

g. Thus, it is concluded that the Faith and Belief of Hindus since

prior to construction of mosque and subsequent thereto has
always been that Janmasthan of Lord Rama is the place where
Babri mosque had been constructed, Faith and Belief stands
proved by documentary and oral evidence.

PART XII: Concluding remarks:

a. With the available evidence the Constitutional Bench could have

dealt the aspect of Faith and Belief as a matter of evidence and
decided the case and could have held that the sacred holy place is
the birth place of Ram and the place being sacred would constitute
good ground to be a juristic person.

b. As a secular institution it chose not to do so, and preferred the route

of deciding the case as title suit over an immovable property.

c. Holding that the demolition in 1991 is condemnable under secular

constitution it conveyed its constraints in dealing with the historical
wrongs within the constitutional scheme.

31
 NATIONAL UNITY THROUGH THE AYODHYA VERDICT

N.Venkataraman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India

d. The court has chosen the golden middle path and decided the title
based on the evidence including the agreement on certain issues by
the Muslims

e. The court has brought on record the various depositions of the

Muslims who vouched the fact that the Hindu believed this sacred
place as the Janmasthan of Lord Rama, a point agreed by them and
no contrary evidence was let in.

f. The court still chose the secular path to settle the dispute thus
laying the path for future generations of both the communities to
move forward

g. The court has delivered a judgment with an intention to strengthen

peace and harmony.

h. The present and future generation should understand the spirit and
work towards it.

i. This sacred place had been the hot seat of contention for several
centuries and has seen riots, disputes and blood bath.

j. Hope the future generation would perceive this aspect and make
Ayodhya, which both in the past had been and in the future will be
revered as birth place of Lord Rama, also become the centre of
Universal Peace and Harmony and may both the communities work
their best in achieving this cherished goal.

- Compiled by Ms. Jayalakshmi. P, Advocate

Junior of Shri N. Venkataraman, Senior Advocate.

32