The Supreme Court on October 16 reserved verdict on cross-appeals by Hindu and Muslim parties in the vexed 70-year-old litigation for ownership of 1,500 square yards of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land, which is part of the 2.77 acre disputed area acquired by the Centre in 1993 after demolition of the mosque in December, 1992. This day to day hearing began on August 6, 2019 after the mediation penal led by the former SC judge Justice F M Khalifullah failed to reach a conclusion.
This signals the end of proceedings in the cross-appeals filed by the main parties - Gopal Singh Visharad (1950), Nirmohi Akhara (1959), Sunni Wakf Board (1961) and Ram Lalla through next friend (1989). A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sharad Arvind Bobde, Dhananjay Yeshwant Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will have time till November 17 to deliver the verdict based on the 40-day long arguments by both sides. CJI Gogoi is scheduled to retire on November 17.
Both the parties refused to accept the Allahabad high court’s 2010 judgment dividing the land equally among Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and UP Sunni Wakf Board. The part under central dome was given to Ram Lalla (the deity); Chabutara, Sita Rasoi and Bhandara part of the mosque to Nirmohi Akhara and the rest, including the land on which the two domes stood, to Sunni Wakf Board.
After reserving the judgment, all five judges decided to take up chamber matters and not regular hearings. After promising each party that “no party’s arguments would be curtailed” on August 6, the bench lived up to the promise and patiently heard submissions of counsel. The Hindu parties were represented by K Parasaran, C S Vaidyanathan, P N Mishra, Ranjit Kumar, Sushil Jain, P S Narasimha, Vikas Singh and Joydeep Gupta, P V Yogeswaran and the Muslim side by Rajeev Dhavan, Zafaryab Jilani, Ejaz Maqbool, Akriti Chaubey and Mohammed Nizam Pasha.
Tempers ran high in the Chief Justice's court as all sides in the dispute were under pressure to conclude their arguments by 5 pm on October 16. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan lost his cool as lawyer Vikas Singh, representing Hindu Mahasabha, sought to place an alleged historic map of the Ram Janmabhoomi site before the Constitution Bench. Singh cited an Oxford University publication, Ayodhya Revisited, by former IPS officer Kishore Kunal, to prove pre-existence of the Ram Temple. However, Dhavan loudly interjected at this point and reportedly tore up the document stating that no new evidence can be admitted in court at such an advanced stage of the suit.
The unsavoury developments upset CJI, who also objected to the courtroom decorum being disturbed. However, the atmosphere in the courtroom lightened after CJI asked Singh if he can keep the book to which advocate replied in the affirmative. "I will start reading it now and will keep reading it in November and after that...will you also sign it for me?," Gogoi said.
The common thread of arguments by Hindu parties was the community’s faith and belief that the place under the central dome of the mosque, demolished by Kar Sevaks on December 6, 1992, was Lord Ram’s birth place and that Hindus worshipped it since time immemorial, continuing to do so despite Babur demolishing the Ram temple and constructing a mosque over it. The Hindu parties also relied heavily on Archaeological Survey of India’s excavation report which opined that a huge structure resembling the temples of northern India was buried beneath the disputed structure. They also relied on events since 1934, when a rioting mob had damaged the domes of the mosque, to argue that Muslims had abandoned it and no prayer was offered there since 1934.
Muslim parties argued that what stood at the disputed site till 1992 was a mosque, which was built by Mughal emperor Babur in 1528. They relied on British documents to claim that Babur had fixed grants for upkeep of the mosque, which were continued by Nawabs of Awadh and by British government itself. They argued Hindus surreptitiously placed idols under the central dome in the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949, to desecrate the mosque and thereafter prevented Muslims from offering Friday namaz there, which was last offered on December 16, 1949. They trashed ASI’s excavation report saying it was mere opinion with little expertise and argued the court should consider it with a pinch of salt.
Parties file final submissions
Muslim parties filed their final submissions in a sealed cover. Sources said they pleaded that the entire disputed land should be decreed in their favour for reconstructing Babri Masjid, which was “illegally demolished in contravention of the status quo orders of high court and Supreme Court in blatant violation of constitutional mandate of secular governance by UP government”, and to set an example for upholding secularism.
VHP-backed suit filed by the deity through next friend submitted that Ayodhya is a holy pilgrimage for Hindus, who believe worship at Ayodhya will help them attain ‘moksha’ (salvation). “The basis of suit filed on behalf of the deity is to build a grand temple of Lord Ram, commensurate with his stature. In case equity is exercised in any manner then it would impinge sacredness of the place, which besides the disputed site, is filled with numerous holy sites, and detract from ability to construct grand temple including all associated and sacred sites which are integral to the shrine,” it said.
The deity’s counsel said Nirmohi Akhara has disentitled itself of ‘shebait’ rights by filing claim adverse to that of deity and by questioning the juristic status of ‘Ram Janmasthan’. Citing ASI evidence about a massive Hindu structures resembling temples beneath the disputed site, the deity’s counsel said, “Muslim parties are not entitled to any equitable relief, more so when the structure is no longer existent. To pray for reconstruction of the mosque is inequitable and unjust and contrary to Hindu Dharma, Islamic Law and all principles of equity, justice and good conscience.”
Sunni Waqf Board gives up claim
Differences within Muslim parties over a mediated settlement came to the fore as the Supreme Court bench commenced writing the final judgment. On the last day of hearing on the Ayodhya case, the apex court-appointed panel of former SC judge F M I Kalifulla, ace mediator and senior advocate Sriram Panchu and spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar filed a memorandum intimating a path-breaking settlement arrived on the vexed issue that would render the opposition by VHP-backed parties and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind redundant.
The settlement, signed by Faruqi, said the UP Sunni Waqf Board had “no objection to the acquisition by the central government of the disputed area (inner and outer courtyard ) of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya. The board confirms and states that there is no bar for such acquisition under Section 51 (1-A) of the Wakf Act, 1995, or any other law”.
Sources said, “In September 2019, members of UP Sunni Central Waqf Board by majority approved the draft settlement in the Babri Masjid case and authorised chairman Zufar Ahmad Faruqi to sign the settlement on behalf of the board.” It is surprising that when members of the board had authorised the chairman to sign the settlement, its advocate-on-record Shakil Ahmed Syed chose to sign a statement opposing the settlement. The SC had recently asked the UP government to give adequate protection to Faruqi. One of the lawyers, Ejaz Maqbool, emphasised that Panchu had interceded with the SC to organise security for Faruqi.
The five advocates-on-record slammed the settlement and said attempts by the mediation committee were not representative in character. “It is difficult to accept that any mediation could have been done under the circumstances, especially when the main Hindu parties have openly stated that they were not open to any settlement and all the other Muslim appellants made it clear they too would not,” they said.
Their stand was endorsed by All India Muslim Personal Law Board which circulated the statement of the five lawyers, representatives of different organisations and individuals. “We the appellants before Supreme Court don’t accept the proposal nor the procedure of mediation or the manner in which a withdrawal of claim has been made as a compromise,” the lawyers said on behalf of their clients. They also questioned the “well-thought out timing” of the leak.
