A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Saturday permitted the construction of a temple at the site where the Babri Masjid once stood, and asked the government to allot a “prominent and suitable” five-acre plot for Muslims to construct a mosque in Ayodhya.

In a unanimous judgment, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi asked the Centre, which had acquired the entire 67.73 acres of land including the 2.77 acre of the disputed Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid premises in 1993, to formulate a scheme within three months and set up a trust to manage the property and construct a temple.

For the time being, the possession of the disputed property would continue to vest with the Centre until a notification is issued by it investing the property in the trust.

The Bench also directed that the Sunni Central Waqf Board should be given a five-acre plot, either by the Centre from within its acquired area, or by the Uttar Pradesh government “at a suitable, prominent place in Ayodhya”. The Board would be at liberty to construct a mosque there. This should be done simultaneously with the transfer of the property to the proposed trust.

The judges declared that the demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, was “an egregious violation of the rule of law” and “a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship”. The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago, the Bench said.

The Court referred to the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act of 1991, which prohibits the conversion of the status any place of worship, to say that all religions are equal. “The Constitution does not make a distinction between the faith and belief of one religion and another. All forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal,” Chief Justice Gogoi said, reading excerpts from the judgment for the Bench, also comprising Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer.

The court concluded that the Muslims were ousted from the 1500 square yards of the mosque through acts of damage during communal riots in 1934, desecration in the intervening night of December 22-23 of 1949 when idols were place inside the mosque, and finally, the demolition of the mosque in 1992.

“This court in the exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied. Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have been 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,” Chief Justice Gogoi read out from the judgment.

The Supreme Court said the Allahabad High Court’s remedy of a three-way bifurcation of the disputed premises among the Ayodhya deity, Sri Bhagwan Ram Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Central Waqf Board “defied logic”. It did not “secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity”.

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. “The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century,” the court observed.

On the other hand, the court held there was both oral and documentary evidence to support the Hindus’ faith that the Janma Asthan was located where the Babri Masjid was constructed. It was beyond the ken of the court to probe whether this belief was justified. Judges cannot indulge in theology, but restrict themselves to evidence and balance of probabilities.

The court said there was proof of extensive worship offered by the Hindus, especially in the outer courtyard where the Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi are located, even before the annexation of the Oudh by the British in 1857. The Hindus’ possession of the outer courtyard has been established.

Besides, the Supreme Court accepted the version of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that the mosque was not constructed on a vacant land. The ASI had suggested the remains of a large pre-existing structure underneath the Babri mosque which was “non-Islamic” in nature. The ASI had said the artefacts collected from the dig and the pillars of the mosque were of a non-Islamic origin.

The court refrained from arriving at a conclusion on the issue whether the pre-existing structure was demolished to construct the mosque. It said the ASI had also maintained a studied silence, only venturing that the pre-existing structure was used to build the mosque.

The court, however, dismissed the contention raised by the Hindu side that the land, Ram Janam Asthan, was a legal personality just as the minor Ayodhya deity, Ram Lala, was. The court said this claim was a “mirror image” of the Muslim’s claim that the disputed site was waqf property.

 

The court dismissed the Akhara’s petition as time-barred. and rejected its suit claiming shebaiti (managerial rights) over the property. However, the court invoked its extraordinary powers to ask the government to give Nirmohi Akhara, considering the sect’s historical presence at the disputed site, to provide it with an “appropriate role in the management” of the property. 

Published – November 09, 2019 03:37 pm IST

New Delhi:

Over 30 years since the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, another mosque in Uttar Pradesh finds itself at the epicentre of a contentious debate. A court-ordered survey of the 16th-century Jama Masjid, a Mughal-era mosque, in Moradabad’s Sambhal, led to multiple deaths, arrests and a riot that brought the city to a grinding halt.

The Jama Masjid in Sambhal was built during the reign of the first Mughal emperor, Babur, between 1526 and 1530, and was one of the three major mosques constructed during his brief but impactful rule. The other two are the mosque at Panipat and the now-demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya.

According to historical reports, the mosque’s construction was supervised by Hindu Beg Qucin, one of Babur’s trusted lieutenants, in December 1526. Its architectural style mirrors the era’s evolving Mughal design, featuring a large square hall with a central dome. Persian inscriptions within the mosque confirm its Mughal origins, though some historians claim remnants of pre-existing Hindu temples were integrated into its construction.

Sambhal itself holds religious significance for Hindus, as the purported birthplace of Kalki, the tenth and final avatar of Vishnu. According to Hindu scriptures, Kalki is destined to appear in Sambhal to end the Kalyug (age of darkness). Earlier this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone of the grand Kalki Dham, calling for “Ram Rashtra” and claiming that “Kalki’s avatar will determine the course of thousands of years.”

Sambhal’s spiritual history – with different faiths overlapping each other in history – forms the crux of the current legal and ideological battle.

The Legal Dispute

The controversy erupted when a petition was filed in Sambhal by advocate Vishnu Shanker Jain and others. Mr Jain, also known for his involvement in the Gyanvapi Mosque and Krishna Janmabhoomi disputes, claimed that the Jama Masjid was built on the ruins of a temple dedicated to Lord Kalki. The petition alleged that the mosque was constructed after the destruction of the temple during Babur’s invasion in 1526-27. The petitioners argue that historical texts such as “Baburnamah” and “Ain-e-Akbari” document the destruction of the temple by Babur.

The plea claims that the temple was built by the Hindu mythological figure Vishwakarma at the beginning of the universe. Babur’s forces allegedly destroyed the temple partially and converted it into a mosque to establish Islamic supremacy. The petition further criticises the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) for failing to take control of the site, as it is a protected monument under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

The petitioners demand unrestricted access to the mosque for Hindus, claiming their right to worship was being unlawfully denied.

The Survey And Its Fallout

In response to the petition, the court ordered a survey of the mosque on November 19, 2024. Advocate Commissioner Ramesh Raghav, along with the district administration and police, carried out the survey the same day. This rapid action drew criticism from several quarters, with claims of judicial overreach and procedural irregularities.

The Muslim community, including the Jama Masjid management committee, strongly opposed the survey. They pointed to the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which prohibits altering the status of any religious site as it existed on August 15, 1947. Ziaur Rehman Barq, the Samajwadi Party MP from Sambhal, condemned the move as an attempt to disrupt communal harmony.

On November 24 tensions boiled over as a second survey was scheduled. Protests erupted near the mosque as hundreds of locals, fearing a repeat of the Babri Masjid demolition, gathered to resist the survey. The demonstrations quickly turned violent, with protesters throwing stones and setting vehicles on fire.

Security personnel responded with tear gas and baton charges to control the mob. Four people were killed, including three men in their 20s. Over 30 police personnel were injured in the clashes.

Several vehicles were torched, and property around the mosque was damaged. Internet services were suspended, prohibitory orders were imposed, and schools were shut for a day to prevent further escalation. The Moradabad Police said that those responsible for the violence would face stringent legal action, including charges under the National Security Act (NSA).

Advocate Vishnu Shanker Jain stated that the ASI must take control of the site to conduct a thorough investigation into its origins. Ziaur Rehman Barq urged the community to remain calm while challenging the survey legally. Former Chief Minister Mayawati criticised the government’s inaction in preventing communal tensions.

Critics argue that allowing such cases undermines the The 1991 Places of Worship Act, which aims to maintain the religious status quo post-Independence.