A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishan Murari said that the court has already given its verdict in the Ayodhya case and the PIL is an attempt to overreach the judgment.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed two ‘frivolous’ PILs seeking preservation of artefacts recovered from the Ram Janmabhoomi site at Ayodhya.
A bench of Justices Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishan Murari said that a five-judge bench has already given its verdict and this is an attempt through PIL to overreach the judgment.
The counsel appearing for the petitioners said the Ram Janmabhoomi Trust has also accepted that there are many artefacts in the area that need protection.
The bench sought to know as to why the petitioners have come before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
“You should stop filing such frivolous petitions. What do you mean by this petition? Are you saying that there is no rule of law and the five-judge bench judgement of this court will not be followed by anyone?” the bench said, adding that it intends to dismiss both the petitions.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said the court should also consider imposing costs.
The bench said that a cost of Rs 1 lakh each is imposed on both the petitioners which should be paid within one month from Monday.
Petitioners Satish Chindhuji Shambharkar and Dr Ambedkar Foundation have moved the top court seeking preservation of artefacts recovered from the disputed site during the court-monitored excavation done during the hearing of the contentious issue at Allahabad high court.
They have also sought to preserve the artefacts which would be recovered after digging the foundation for the new Ram temple at Ayodhya and said that it should be done under the supervision of Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
On November 9, settling a fractious issue that goes back more than a century, the Supreme Court in a historic verdict backed the construction of a Ram temple by a trust at the disputed site in Ayodhya and ruled that an alternative five-acre plot must be found for a mosque in the Hindu holy town.
Delivering a unanimous judgement on a case that has long polarised the country and frayed the secular tapestry of Indian society, a five-judge bench of the apex court headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the site was undisputed and he is symbolically the owner of the land.
With the long-awaited Ayodhya verdict just hours away, The Wire brings you photographs of the fateful day 27 years ago – December 6, 1992 – when the 450-year-old Babri Masjid was torn down.
Taken by photographer Sondeep Shankar, the pictures show pivotal moments from where rioters can be seen on top of the mosque to other moments where karsevaks can be seen reading newspapers while sitting on stones meant for the construction of a Ram Mandir.
Following the Ayodhya incident, the country witnessed massive riots that killed over 2,000 people.
Hindu activists climb the dome of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Archival photograph: Sondeep Shankar
Hindu activists climb the dome of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Archival photograph: Sondeep Shankar
VHP president Ashok Singhal coming out of a Dharam Sansad meeting at Ayodhya on December 4, 1996. Two days later, the Babri Masjid was demolished. Archival photograph: Sondeep Shankar
Karsevaks resting on partially carved stone pillars for a Ram Mandir near the disputed site in Ayodhya, December 1992. Archival photograph: Sondeep Shankar
A five-judge constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, had reserved the judgement in the Ayodhya case on October 16 after a marathon hearing of 40 days.
The other judges on the bench are Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
In 2010, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court partitioned the disputed land three ways, between the Vishwa Hindu Parishad-led litigants who want to build a Ram temple at the site, the Nirmohi Akhara, who also want a temple but insist they should be its custodians, and the Sunni Waqf Board.
All three parties, and others, went to the Supreme Court in appeal the same year but it was only in 2017, when the BJP at the Centre and in Uttar Pradesh began raising the Ram temple issue again, that the apex court began to actually consider the matter.
While charges have been framed in the conspiracy case against senior BJP leaders who mobilised lakhs of Hindutva activists to assemble at the site on December 6, 1992 and demolish the mosque, the criminal trial is far from nearing completion.
Appeals for calm
In the run up to Saturday’s verdict, appeals for calm have been made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and politicians cutting across party lines. A number of Muslim and Hindu organisations have also appealed for all sides to respect whatever verdict emerges.
In Ayodhya and at sensitive spots in Uttar Pradesh, a large contingent of security forces have been deployed.
Ayodhya Timeline: Once There Was a Masjid
1528: The Babri Masjid is constructed in Ayodhya by Mir Baqi, upon the instructions of the Mughal emperor Babur.
16th-18th centuries: There is no record or discussion of the mosque having been built over a demolished temple, nor indeed is there any record of claims being made that the site was the birthplace of Rama.
1855: The temple town of Ayodhya witnesses clashes between Sunni Muslims and Bairais over the temple of Hanumangarhi, with the former claiming the temple was built at the site of a demolished mosque. Nawab Wajid Ali Shah intervenes on behalf of the temple and holds the peace.
1859: As a local belief about the Babri Masjid being the birthplace of Rama gathers currency, the British colonial administration erects a fence at the site. While Muslims use the mosque’s inner court to pray, Hindus are allowed to use the outer court.
1885: Mahant Raghubir Das seeks permission to build a platform or chabutra in the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid. His plea is later rejected by a local court.
March 1934: The dispute comes to life again with the outbreak of rioting between Hindus and Muslims which results in damage to the mosque and the dome, which was subsequently rebuilt by the government.
1938-1947: Shia and Sunni Waqf boards contest each other’s claims to the Babri masjid but a local court eventually rules in favour of the latter.
December 22, 1949: Idols of Lord Ram are planted by Hindu Mahasabha activists inside the mosque. The mosque is then locked. District magistrate K.K. Nayar refused to remove the idol on the premise that this would lead to large-scale rioting. He later joined the Jan Sangh, the precursor to the BJP, and was also elected as an MP.
December 26, 1949: Nehru sends a telegram to the chief minister of the United Province Govind Ballabh Pant expressing concern over the developments in Ayodhya.
A rear view of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
1950: Hashim Ansari files a petition in the Faizabad court asking for the mosque gates to be opened and for namaz to be allowed. Gopal Singh Visharad and Mahant Paramhans Ramchandra Das also file suits in the Faizabad court seeking permission to offer prayers to the idols in the so-called asthan janmabhoomi. While the inner courtyard remains locked, prayers are allowed from outside. An interim injunction allows a pujari in but forbids entry to others.
1959: A third suit is filed in the Faizabad court by the Nirmohi Akhara (headed by Mahant Bhaskar Das). The Akhara stakes claim to the disputed ground and claims to be responsible for conducting the puja.
1961: A fourth suit is filed by the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board in the Faizabad court asking for the restoration of the Muslims’ right to pray at the mosque.
April 6, 1980: The BJP is founded after the dissolution of the Janata Party.
Atal Bihari Vajpayee at a public meeting with L.K. Advani. Photo: Reuters/Punit Paranjpe
1981: The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board files a suit for possession of the site.
1984: Hindu groups form a committee to spearhead the construction of a Ram temple as the Ram Janmabhoomi movement gathers momentum. BJP leader L.K. Advani assumes leadership of the movement.
April 1984: In response to a mass conversion in Meenakshipuram in 1981, where around 400-800 Dalit families converted to Islam, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad holds a ‘’dharma sansad’. Under VHP joint general secretary Ashok Singhal’s leadership, a demand was raised to build a Ram temple in Ayodhya. A Shriram-Janaki rath yatra was taken out from Sitamarhi in Bihar to Delhi on September 25, 1984. Six more yatras were taken out in UP.
November 1984: General elections are held for the 9th Lok Sabha in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination. The BJP wins only two seats out of 541. The party’s openly Hindutva politics and espousal of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement fails to yield dividends.
The VHP built a prototype of the Ram temple and carried it to various parts of India. Seen here with Ashok Singhal. Credit: Reuters
April 23, 1985: Supreme Court delivers its verdict in the case of Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum and upholds the decision of the high court that gave orders for maintenance to Shah Bano under CrPC. The judgment is denounced by conservative Muslim leaders.
February 1, 1986: A district judge directs that the Babri Masjid gates be unlocked and Hindus be allowed to worship there. In protest, Muslims set up the Babri Masjid Action Committee. According to historian Ramachandra Guha, “the judge’s order was widely believed to have been directed from Delhi, from the Prime Minister’s Office, no less. The local administration seemed to know of the judgment beforehand, for the locks were opened within an hour of the verdict.” Television crews from Doordarshan were also present. Rajiv Gandhi was prime minister at the time and the move was part of the ‘divide and rule’ politics of a government that was coming under a cloud because of corruption charges. A few months after appeasing Hindu communalists, he did the same with their Muslim counterparts.
May, 1986: Parliament passes the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, effectively overturning the Supreme Court verdict in the Shah Bano case. In a 2001 interview, L.K. Advani said that the Rajiv Gandhi government’s decision to open the doors of the Ram temple and its backtracking over the Supreme Court verdict in the Shah Bano case were crucial factors that forced the BJP to get involved in the Ayodhya movement.
Arif Mohammad Khan quit the INC over his differences with Rajiv Gandhi on the Muslim Personal Law Bill. Photo: PTI
1986: L.K. Advani becomes the president of the BJP.
July, 1989: A fresh suit is filed by VHP vice-president and former judge of the Allahabad high court Deoki Nandan Agarwal seeking to become the “sakha” or friend of the deity and its birthplace in the title suits at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad HC. In July 1996, the high court clubbed all the cases together.
August 14, 1989: Allahabad high court orders maintenance of status quo with respect to the Babri Masjid.
November 9, 1989: Rajiv Gandhi government allows the VHP to perform shilanyas (laying of the foundation stone) for the Ram temple on November 9, 1989, on the disputed land.
1989: In the recently concluded general elections, the BJP emerges as the third-largest party with 89 seats and supports V.P. Singh’s National Front government from outside.
September 25, 1990: BJP President L.K. Advani launches his Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya to gather support for the Ram temple. He is arrested in Samastipur in Bihar by the government of Lalu Prasad Yadav in November, 1990. Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Ashok Singhal is also arrested.
October 30, 1990:Kar sevaks clash with the police on their way to Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid and at least 20 kar sevaks are killed. Mulayam Singh Yadav was chief minister at the time. Uttar Pradesh was subsequently rocked by a series of communal clashes. After the Rath Yatra, the BJP withdraws its support to the National Front central government led by V. P. Singh, leading to its collapse.
1991: BJP emerges as the second-largest party with 121 seats in the Lok Sabha following the general elections but the Congress under Narasimha Rao forms the government at the Centre.
BJP starts to influence national politics. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L.K. Advani (right) are seen here with socialist stalwarts George Fernandes and Ramakrishna Hegde. Photo: Reuters
1991: BJP forms the government in Uttar Pradesh with Kalyan Singh as the chief minister.
December 6, 1992: A crowd of almost 150,000 people gather to listen to speeches by BJP and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leaders – including LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi – at the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The crowd later storms the mosque and demolishes it in a few hours. The demolition occurred despite assurances from the state government to the Supreme Court that the mosque would not be harmed.
Hindu militants storm the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, climbing atop the building’s dome as they demolish it to clear the site for a Hindu temple. Photo: Reuters/Sunil Malhotra
After the demolition of the Babri Masjid, on the evening of December 6, 1992, kar sevaksstarted attacking Muslim residents of Ayodhya, ransacking and demolishing their houses. Eighteen Muslims were murdered, almost all their houses and shops were torched and destroyed, including 23 local mosques. Additionally, riots broke out in different parts of the country, including Mumbai, and around 2,000 people were killed.
December 8, 1992: Muslims in Pakistan attack more than 30 Hindu temples and the Pakistani government closes offices and schools for a day to protest the destruction of a mosque in India.
December 16, 1992: The Narasimha Rao government sets up the Liberhan Commission, led by retired high court Judge M.S. Liberhan, to investigate the case.
March 1993: Terrorists orchestrate a series of deadly bomb blasts across Bombay, allegedly to avenge the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
1993 Mumbai serial blast. Photo: PTI
April 3, 1993: Parliament passes the ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ under which the Centre acquires 67.703 acres of land in and around the Babri Masjid. Ismail Faruqui files a written petition challenging some aspects of the Act.
1993: The Liberhan Commission begins its probe. CBI takes over the criminal case and files a chargesheet against BJP leader L.K. Advani and 19 others and accuses them of conspiring to demolish the mosque.
October 24, 1994: The Supreme Court in the Ismail Faruqui case says that a ‘mosque’ is not integral to Islam owing to the fact that ‘namaz’ can be offered anywhere. The Supreme Court finds UP chief minister Kalyan Singh guilty and the court sentences him to a token imprisonment of one day with a fine of Rs 20,000.
Kalyan Singh. Photo: PTI/Files
1998: The BJP forms a coalition government at the Centre under Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.
2001: Tensions rise on the anniversary of the demolition of the mosque. VHP pledges again to build a Hindu temple at the site.
May 2001: A special CBI court drops proceedings and conspiracy charges against the key accused including Advani, M.M. Joshi, Uma Bharti, Bal Thackeray and others.
Murli Manohar Joshi (left), L.K. Advani (centre) and Atal Bihari Vajpayee (right) Photo: Reuters
January 2002: PM Vajpayee sets up an Ayodhya cell in his office and appoints a senior official, Shatrughan Singh, to hold talks with Hindu and Muslim leaders.
February 2002: BJP rules out committing itself to the construction of a temple in its election manifesto for Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. VHP confirms deadline of 15 March to begin construction. Hundreds of volunteers converge on site. At least 58 people are killed in an attack on a train in Godhra which is carrying Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya. Between 1,000 and 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, die in riots in Gujarat following the train attack in March. Narendra Modi is chief minister of Gujarat at the time.
The Godhra train fire of 2002. Photo: Reuters
2002: The Allahabad high court directs the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the Babri Masjid site to determine if a temple lay underneath.
August 2003: The ASI submits a report saying that there is evidence of a 10th century temple beneath the mosque. Its report is refuted by archaeologists and historians.
September 2003: CBI special court rules that seven Hindutva leaders should stand trial for inciting the destruction of the Babri Mosque, but no charges are brought against Advani, now deputy prime minister, who was also at the site in 1992.
November 2004: The court rules that the earlier order which exonerated Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed.
July 2005: Six suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists attack the disputed Ram Janambhoomi complex in Ayodhya. The VHP international general secretary Praveen Togadia held the Centre responsible for the “lapse in security” and blamed the UPA government. VHP president Ashok Singhal said that the attack intended to “destroy the excavated proof”.
Policemen stands guard near the wreckage of a Jeep used in an attack on Ayodhya. Photo: Pawan Kumar/Reuters
June 2009: The Liberhan commission investigating the events leading up to the mosque’s demolition submits its report – 17 years after it began its inquiry – to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
Justice MS Liberhan submits the one-man Commission report on the demolition of the Babri Masjid to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on June 30, 2009. Photo: PTI
One of the longest-running commissions in the history of the country, the commission, in its report, found several BJP leaders like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Kalyan Singh, Pramod Mahajan, Uma Bharti and Vijayaraje Scindia, and VHP leaders like Giriraj Kishore and Ashok Singhal and Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and former RSS leader K. N. Govindacharya culpable in the demolition of the mosque. The report held that several of the leaders had made provocative speeches at the rally and that the demolition was “neither spontaneous nor unplanned”.
September 2010: Allahabad high court rules that the disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid was shall be divided into three parts. A two-thirds portion is to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs and one-third will be given to the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board. Plaintiffs representing Lord Ram (i.e. VHP), the Nirmohi Akhara and the Waqf Board were declared joint title-holders of the property.
Rapid Action Force personnel on patrol in Ayodhya on the day the high court pronounced its verdict. Photo: Reuters
May 2011: Supreme Court suspends high court ruling after Hindu and Muslim plaintiffs appeal against the 2010 verdict.
May 2014: BJP’s Narendra Modi leads the NDA coalition to power at the Centre.
Feb 26, 2016: BJP MP Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of a Ram temple at the Babri Masjid site.
Jul 20, 2016: The oldest litigant in the Babri Masjid case Mohammad Hashim Ansari dies at 95 years of age.
March 2017: Supreme Court under Chief Justice J.S. Khehar says fresh attempts must be made by all parties concerned to find a solution to the Ayodhya title dispute which is a “sensitive” and “sentimental matter” and suggests an out-of-court settlement among rival parties.
March 2017: BJP wins the state assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh and Yogi Adityanath, founder of the Hindu Yuva Vahini, takes oath as chief minister.
Senior BJP leaders Uma Bharti, Lal Krishna Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi. Photo: PTI
April 2017: Supreme Court rules that L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Union minister Uma Bharti, in addition to other BJP members and kar sevaks, will face charges of criminal conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Kalyan Singh was excluded from the list because he held the post of the governor of Rajasthan. Several of the original accused, including Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, died during the trial. The court orders that the trial, to be held in Lucknow, be completed in two years.
May 30, 2017: A special CBI court frames charges against BJP stalwarts L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti for being part of the criminal conspiracy to demolish the Babri Masjid but granted them bail after they appeared before it.
July 2017: Speeding up preparations for the construction of a Ram temple on the Babri site in Ayodhya, truckloads of stones, to be used in building the temple, start arriving in Ayodhya.
August 2017: The Supreme Court constitutes 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.
August 8, 2017: The Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh tells the Supreme Court that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site in Ayodhya.
November 24, 2017: RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat says that only a Ram temple and not any other structure will be built at the disputed Ayodhya site.
November 20, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow. On December 1, 2017, thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
February 8, 2018: Supreme Court starts hearing the civil appeals and on March 14, 2018, the Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.
July 6, 2018: UP government tells Supreme Court some Muslim groups are trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict.
September 27, 2018: Supreme Court declines to refer the case to a five-judge constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.
November 12, 2018: Supreme Court declines early hearing of petitions in the case requested by Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.
November 24, 2018: Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray visits Ayodhya and accuses the Modi government of dragging its feet on the issue.
January 8, 2019: Supreme Court sets up a five-judge constitution Bench to hear the case headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, U.U. Lalit and D.Y. Chandrachud.
Justice U.U. Lalit. Credit: LiveLaw
January 10, 2019: Justice U.U. Lalit recuses himself after lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board, informed the court that the judge had appeared for former UP chief minister Kalyan Singh in a contempt matter related to Babri Masjid case during his time as a lawyer, prompting Supreme Court to reschedule the hearing for January 29 before a new bench.
January 25, 2019: Supreme Court reconstitutes 5-member Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer to hear the case
March 8, 2019: Supreme Court refers the dispute for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F.M.I. Kallifulla and comprising the advocate Sriram Panchu and Art of Living founder Venkatratnam Ravishankar Ramanayakanpet (also known as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar).
July 15, 2019: The special judge holding the trial in the Babri Masjid demolition case, involving BJP veterans L.K. Advani, M.M. Joshi, Uma Bharti and others, moves the Supreme Court seeking six more months to conclude the trial.
August 2, 2019: After the mediation process fails to yield any results, Chief Justice Gogoi says that hearing of the Ayodhya case will begin on August 6 again and will be held on a day-to-day basis.
October 14, 2019: The Ayodhya district administration imposes Section 144 until December 10 in view of the imminent Supreme Court verdict in the case.
October 16, 2019: In a surprise development on the last day of the hearings, the primary Muslim litigant in the title dispute case informs the Supreme Court that it is willing to drop its appeals in the matter – and its claims to the land on which the historic Babri Masjid stood for centuries before it was demolished by Hindutva activists and leaders in 1992 – provided the Centre is willing to guarantee that all other places of worship in India will be protected from similar encroachment. Other Muslim plaintiffs dissociate themselves from this offer, which in any case was not accepted by the main Hindu plaintiff, i.e. the VHP.
November 5, 2019: UP Police decides to ‘scrutinise’ social media posts for objectionable or inflammatory posts in light to the upcoming judgment.
November 6, 2019: Ahead of the Ayodhya title dispute case verdict, several prominent Muslim organisations appeal to the government and citizens of the country to maintain peace and law and order after the judgement is delivered. BJP asks spokespersons to exercise restraint and RSS appeals for calm.
November 8, 2019: Supreme Court registrar says verdict in the title suit will be delivered at 10:30 am on November 9, 2019.
New Delhi: As many as 4,000 personnel of the Central Armed Police Forces have reportedly been sent to Ayodhya to ensure there is no violence or break down of law and order, with the Supreme Court set to deliver its verdict on the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute case next week.
CJI Gogoi met with Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary Rajendra Kumar Tiwari and police chief Om Prakash Singh on Friday to discuss law and order ahead of the verdict, reportedNDTV. The CJI’s concern with an administrative responsibility has also been criticised by many on social media.
The home ministry has also sent an advisory to all states to ensure that law and order is maintained.
In Uttar Pradesh, the state government is reportedly prepared with a “four-layered security plan.” Some 12,000 police personnel have been deployed across Ayodhya itself. The town itself has been divided into four security zones which will be taken care of by the Central paramilitary forces or by the police.
PTI has reported that the UP government is going to have two helicopters on standby in Lucknow and Ayodhya to quickly reach any emergency spot. The state government plans on having a control room in Lucknow and have every district of the state monitored.
Police personnel conduct searches near the site of disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site, as the verdict date nears, in Ayodhya, Friday, November 8, 2019. Photo: PTI
The UP government had earlier also said that they are monitoring social media to see if any inflammatory messages were being posted. The state police have reportedly set up a network with 16,000 volunteers in villages who are tracking their local situations and keeping in touch with the police about any potential violence.
In Mumbai, police commissioner Sanjay Barve asked residents to maintain communal peace and harmony. Mumbai has witnessed several acts of communal violence including riots after the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December 1992.
The state of Goa has issued orders to prohibit the congregation of more than five people. The orders also prohibit people from taking out any procession, carrying firearms or swords and the use of loudspeakers or fire crackers.
Similar prohibitory orders have also been issued in Palghar district of Maharashtra.
In Bihar, Bihar’s deputy chief minister Sushil Modi also appealed to people to stay calm no matter what the verdict. He said: “Whenever the judgment is pronounced, neither side should treat it as a victory or a defeat. It shall not be seen as an occasion to rise up in celebrations or to go in mourning.” He also told party workers to not issue any statements before the verdict.
This is line with what the Supreme Court had ordered while appointing the mediators.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court appointed mediation committee for the resolution of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in an order dated March 13, directed that there should “not be any reporting of the mediation proceedings in print or other media”.
The order, signed by committee chairman F.M.I. Kalifulla, is in line with the what the Supreme Court had said while ruling in favour of mediation. The court had said:
“We are also of the view that mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentiality so as to ensure its success which can only be safeguarded by directing that the mediation proceedings and those views expressed therein by any of the parties included and learned mediators shall be kept confidential and not be revealed to any other person.”
The committee comprises of former Supreme Court judge, Justice F.M.I Kalifulla, spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu. It assembled for its first meeting in Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh at 10:30 am on March 13.
The committee reportedly heard everyone who attended the proceedings after notices had been issued to all the parties to different civil appeals pending before the Supreme Court regarding the issue.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad high court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Professor Apporvanand talks about the three-member panel appointed by the Supreme Court for mediation on the disputed land in Ayodhya.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday referred the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation and appointed former apex court judge Justice (retd) F.M.I. Kalifulla as chairperson of the panel of mediators.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the other members of the panel will be spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday referred the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for mediation and appointed former apex court judge Justice (retd) F.M.I. Kalifulla as chairperson of the panel of mediators.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the other members of the panel will be spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.
The bench directed that the mediation will be held at Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh and the process should start within a week from Friday.
The bench also comprising justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer said the panel of mediators will file a progress report of the mediator proceedings within four weeks and the process should be completed within eight weeks.
In March 2018, The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani interviewed Sri Sri Ravi Shankar about the comments he made on the Ayodhya case.
The apex court said that “utmost confidentiality” should be maintained to ensure success of mediation and neither print nor electronic media should report the proceedings.
The bench also directed that panel of mediators can co-opt more members in the team and in case of any difficulty the chairman will inform the apex court registry about it.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The Centre’s recent petition on returning ‘extra’ acquired land to the ‘original owners’ misunderstands the Supreme Court’s previous orders on the matter.
Two weeks after suggesting mediation as an option, the Supreme Court on Friday directed the parties involved in the Ayodhya case to join a confidential, court monitored mediatory process as means of resolving the dispute. The mediators named are senior lawyer Sriram Panchu, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravishankar and Justice Kalifullah, a former judge of the Supreme Court.
After the amendment of the CPC in 2002, the court was not required to secure the consent of the parties, though obviously successful mediation requires the unanimous consent of all litigants.
On February 26, when the court suggested the parties explore a permanent solution of the issue through court monitored mediation under strict confidentiality, this suggestion was broadly accepted by all the Muslim parties and the Nirmohi Akhara, whereas the parties representing the temple side rejected the suggestion. Soon after, they took a clearer stand in writing, stating that “….they are not ready for compromise. They cannot give up their claim on any inch of land”.
We cannot forget the fact that in the last week of January, 2019, theCentral government came up with an application in the Supreme Court in the Aslam Bhure case, saying that it wants to return 67 acres of acquired land around the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya to its “original owners”.
The Aslam Bhure case was disposed of by a five-judge Supreme Court bench on March 31, 2003. Now, the Centre has said in its application that “continuation of vesting of superfluous land in the central Government defeats the very temporary nature of acquisition under 1993 Act [The Acquisition Of Certain Area At Ayodhya Act, 1993]”.
The disputed area is only 0.313 acres, according to the government, and the original owners of the rest of the acquired land in Ayodhya are entitled to get it back. The government is duty-bound to return this land, the application said.
The Centre acquired this 67 acres of adjacent land under the 1993 Act. Subsequently, the Ismail Faruqui judgement of 1994 justified the Centre’s retention of this larger area of land while the Ayodhya title dispute is resolved.
Now, while the courts are still hearing the issue, the Central government has sought to create the impression that a resolution has been reached.
Misrepresented terms
Before anything else, it is important to understand a few terms, as the government’s application plays around with them to suits its needs.
‘Disputed area’ cannot mean just 0.0313 acres. The pre-acquisition and pre-Faruqui case claims of Muslim parties in their civil suit filed in 1961 said the disputed area would be between four and five acres. This extended area of land took into account the graveyard surrounding the mosque.
The way the government’s application has been worded, it would also result in Muslim parties getting back this four or five acres of land, leaving aside the 0.313 acres. This is because the government cannot treat Muslims’ claims on the acquired land differently.
However, since the acquisition of the surrounding land has been upheld in the Faruqui case of 1994, no one can ask for it back it this point – Hindus and Muslims alike. All parties will have to wait for final resolution of the title dispute case.
Instead of the term ‘disputed area’, the proper term for the 0.313 acres would be the ‘mosque area’ or ‘disputed structure’, in which the outer courtyard area is also included.
In para 96(6) of the Faruqui judgment, the Supreme Court said that all the adjacent area acquired shall be used for the purposes set out in the 1993 Act. The Act had said that the acquisition “of the site of disputed structure and adjacent land [is] for setting up complex which could be developed in planned manner wherein a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library and a museum and other suitable facilities can be set up”.
This intent of the Act cannot be fulfilled by the Central government at this stage because the parties’ suits are still pending in the Supreme Court. After the dispute has been resolved, the government will have to plan the area’s development as per the purpose set out in the 1993 Act. After that, if some land remains as ‘excess’, then the “original owners” of that land will have to initiate litigation if they want to get it back.
Another term used incorrectly in the application is ‘undisputed area’. The proper term which ought to have been used is ‘excess or surplus area in the adjacent area’. This land can only be identified after the final resolution plan. In its application, however, the Centre has declared the entire adjacent area to be ‘superfluous area’ by misreading the earlier judgements.
Considering the facts – that the adjacent land will be utilised depending on the outcome of the litigation – and further taking note of maintaining communal harmony and fulfilling the objectives of the Act, the Supreme Court bench in the Aslam Bhure case directed that the “larger extent of land is incidental to the main purpose”. The disputed and non-disputed land are “intrinsically connected”, the court said, and at this stage of the proceedings, no religious activity of any kind is permitted on the 67 acres.
Why now?
After the Faruqui case, the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the “original owners” according to the Centre) had filed an application before the Central government for the restoration of the land, and also claimed compensation for the land acquired. This application was rejected on August 14, 1996, with the Centre stating that the land cannot be restored till the case is decided. The Nyas was told to approach the claims commissioner for compensation. When hearing a challenge to this order, the high court backed the Central government.
Now the Centre, on a suo motu basis, is saying that they should be ‘permitted’ to hand over the (wrongly understood) ‘superfluous’ land to its original owners. This amounts to overreach, as the main case is still pending before five judges. The delay in hearing the main case because one of the judges had a genuine concern. It seems that the Central government’s application was an attempt to keep the polarising discussion going, for their political gains.
The constitutional scheme of this country prohibits the governments from playing the role of a religious leader. At the most, it can play a role in the religious affairs of different parties by ensuring equal treatment for all. A nine-judge Supreme Court bench said in the 1994 Bommai judgment that “strong religious consciousness not only narrows the vision but hampers the rule of law”. The judgment also defined the secular parameters within which a government is bound to operate.
The Modi government’s application is an attempt to keep the pot boiling, irrespective of the outcome. This will only further endanger rule of law, which is already under serious attack.
Note: This article was submitted last week and has been updated by The Wire editors to reflect latest developments.
M.R. Shamshad is the advocate-on-record for Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title suit.
