The Ayodhya verdict - Atasi Das

In 1528, a mosque was constructed at the birthplace of Lord Rama in Ayodhya after the alleged demolition of a Ram temple therein. It has since then been a bone of contention between the Hindu and Muslim communities resident therein. In 1859 the British administration segregated the places of worship within the disputed mosque (inner court to be used by Muslims and the outer one by Hindus). In December 1949 a Ram idol was installed in the premises, which lead to two civil suits in 1950; the Central Government locked the disputed area.

In 1986 the Ayodhya district judge opened the gates of the disputed structure and allowed worship by the Hindus, which upset the Muslim community; the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Babri Mosque Action Committee took up the cudgels on behalf of the Hindu and Muslim communities respectively and religious fanaticism raised its ugly head. The mosque was partially damaged by VHP volunteers in 1990. Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar’s attempts at resolving the matter through negotiations failed to yield results.

On 6 December 1992 the mosque was demolished by frenzied VHP, Shiv Sena and BJP supporters; nationwide Hindu-Muslim rioting ensued, which claimed over 2,000 lives. The Liberhan commission was appointed on 16 December 1992 by the PV Narasimha Rao government to investigate the happenings.

In 2002 a train coach filled with devotees from Ayodhya was burnt at Godhra station, killing 58 passengers; ensuing riots killed over 1,000 people in Gujarat. In the same year the High Court started its hearing for the determination of the ownership of the disputed religious site. In 2003 archaeologists doing a court-ordered survey found evidence of the existence of a temple under the disputed mosque. The Liberhan Commission submitted its report after 16 years on 30 June 2009.

Parties to the dispute
Five title suits had been filed with the court. The first two valid suits were filed in 1950 by the Hindu Mahsabha's late Visharad and Paramhansa Ramchandra Das (presently represented by Rajenda Singh Visharad and Mahant Ram Das respectively). The Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Central Wakf Board later also became parties to the dispute. The four suits were combined in 1964. Retired Allahabad high court judge Deoki Nandan Agrawal filed a related suit in 1989 on behalf of ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’.

The Allahabad High Court verdict
The Allahabad High Court gave its verdict on the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid law suit running into 8,189 pages on 30th September 2010. The three judges’ bench of Justice D.V. Sharma, Justice S.U. Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal gave separate rulings in the 60-year-old legal dispute (they differed on many issues but agreed on some critical points).

Brief overview of the court ruling

• The disputed land has been divided equally amongst the Nirmohi Akhara, the representatives of the ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ and the Sunni wakf board; a three-month status quo has been allowed for making appeals to the Supreme Court.
• The Ram idol installed at the place once occupied by the Babri Masjid will remain there and the representatives of ‘Ram Lalla’ will gain control of the area; they may also construct a permanent temple therein. The remaining portion of the ‘inner courtyard’ will be shared by the Ram Lalla representatives of and the Wakf board.
• The Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar will go to the Nirmohi Akhara; the Akhara and Ram Lalla representatives will share the remaining portion of the outer courtyard.
• The Wakf board’s share will be atleast a third of the total area.
• The Ram Lalla installation has been sanctified by all the judges.
• On the basis of the ASI report, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma and Justice Sudhir Agarwal ruled that the disputed mosque had been constructed after the destruction of a Hindu temple therein. Justice S.U. Khan held that the temple was already in ruins and had not been demolished for the construction of the mosque.
• Justice Sharma and Justice Agarwal accepted the fact that the Hindus had a prior claim to the disputed religious site and jointly agreed that the demolished Babri Masjid area was the birthplace of Hindu deity, Lord Ram. Justice Sharma ruled that the whole disputed site belonged to Ram Lalla and Islamic law made the mosque illegitimate, as it was built after the demolition of a Hindu religious structure therein.
• Justice Agarwal and Justice Khan took a more liberal view and jointly ruled that, since the disputed religious site has been used by both the Hindu and Muslim communities for centuries, the place would be divided into three equal parts; a third will go to each of the two Hindu claimants (the Nirmohi Akhara and the representatives of the infant Ram) and the Muslim party respectively.
• Justice Sharma dismissed the suits of the Sunni Central Wakf Board, Gopal Singh Visharad and Nirmohi Akhara as ‘time-barred’.
• Rajendra Singh Visharad, son of the late petitioner Gopal Singh Visharad has not been allotted any share of the disputed property but he can worship the Ram idol therein.

The court has directed all parties to the dispute to approach the Central Government, the ‘statutory receiver’ of 71 acres of the Ayodhya land (inclusive of the 2.77 acres of the disputed area) due to the pending legal dispute, for working out the new land redistribution schemes. The Hindu Mahasabha and the Wakf board are already set to appeal against the High Court judgment in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court verdict can again be reviewed by the same bench or a 5-judge bench via a ‘curative petition’.