Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid Dispute
Author- Mohd Shamshad Ahmad
Co-Author- Adnan Athar Quraishi
Introduction
In 1528, first Mughal Emperor of India Zaheer-ud-din Mohammad Babur build a mosque named as Babri-Masjid, and it was built by his commander Mir Baqi according to the recognition. But according to Hindu mythology it was the birth place of Lord Rama or infant as Ram Lalla. After that in 1859 the first dispute arose and The British Government created a bond of wires on the land and give a permission to both the parties Hindu and Muslim to worship there respected Gods in Inner and outer area of the land. The inner land was appointed to the Muslims and the outer courtyard was appointed to Hindus for the worship. After 357 years of established Mosque the matter first time went to Court in 1885. Regarding with the disputed land Mahant Raghubeer Das filed a suit in Faizabad District Court for the construction of roof in outer courtyard but the trial was running and delaying. After the Independence in 1949, 23rd December a statue of Lord Rama was placed under the main dome of the mosque and after that Hindus started worshiping regularly and Muslims stopped praying from that time. On 16th January 1950 Gopal Shimla Visharat field an appeal in Faizabad Court for a special permission sought to worship Ram Lalla. On 17th December 1959 Nirmohi Akhara filed a case to modify the disputed land. After that in 1961, 18th December Sunni Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh filed a case for the ownership of Babri Masjid. On 1st February 1986 local court orders the government to open the sites for Hindu worshippers. After that on 25th September 1990 L.K. Advani starts nationwide Rath Yatra from Somnath in Gujarat. On 6th December 1992 Babri Masjid was demolished by karsevaks.
In April 2002 Allahabad High Court begins hearing on ownership of disputed site. After that on Sept.30 2010 High Court in a 2:1 majority rule 3 way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. In the judgment Hon’ble Justice Khan stated that
“both Muslims And Hindus have failed to prove a title over the land. Muslims have failed to prove that the land belonged to Babar under whose orders the mosque was constructed and even the Hindus have not proved that there was a temple existed before the mosque was constructed.”
After the judgment came on the verdict none of the parties were satisfied with this judgment and appealed in the Supreme Court challenging this judgment. 11 other parties also filed a special leave petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict. The Supreme Court stayed the verdict on 9th May 2011.
On 2017 March 21st CJI Justice J.S.Khehar suggest out of court settlement among rival parties, then after on Jan. 25th 2019 SC reconstitutes 5- member Constitution Banch to hear the case as Justice U.U Lalit recuses. The new bench has CJI Gogoi, Justice Bobde, Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan And S.A. Nazir. On 2019 May 9 the three member mediation committee submits interim respects to SC. After that Aug. 1 report of mediation submitted in sealed cover to SC. On Aug 6th SC commences day to day hearing on the disputed land. After that on Oct. 16th 2019 the SC concludes hearing and reserves order.
On November 9th 2019 SC came with the judgment on the disputed land and he stated that
“A temple will come up on the 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya and a five-acre plot at an
alternate site will go for the building of a mosque, the Supreme Court said in a landmark verdict
on the century-old politically sensitive temple-mosque dispute. The five-judge bench led by Chief
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said they should "ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied".
The Sunni Wakf Board will be granted five acres of land in a "suitable, prominent place in
Ayodhya", the top court said, adding that the Muslims should not be deprived of a structure. The
location of the alternate site will be decided by the Central or the state government, the bench
said.
The dispute involved 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya, which right-wing activists believe was the
birthplace of Lord Ram. A 16th Century mosque - said to have been built by the Mughal
Emperor Babur -- which stood at the spot was razed in December 1992 by right-wing activists.
The Muslims were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque on 22/23 December 1949
which was ultimately destroyed on 6 December 1992, the court said.
"There was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims. 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.
Explaining its decision to grant the disputed site for a temple, the court said, the Archaeological
Survey of India has found evidence that the 16th Century mosque of Mughal Emperor Babar was
not built on vacant land.
"On balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the
composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced
by the Muslims,”
Conclusion
With all due respect the judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as a respected person and a citizen of India me and myself respect the judgment and agree with the Hon’ble Supreme Court but some of the things in my opinion are unjust and raising some doubts in my mind as a student of Constitution.
Justice J.S Verma former CJI of India and also he was a chairman of national human rights commission from 1999 to 2003, and also chairman of justice Verma committee report on amendments to criminal law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.
Justice J.S. Verma said that “ Supreme Court is indeed Supreme but no infallible” And in many cases in the history of judgment of Supreme Court it has been over-ruled the previous judgment with the review petition to higher bench. In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 1967 11 member Constitution Bench said with 6:5 majority that any part of the fundamental rights cannot be amended which are sacro-sanct in nature and kept out of reach of parliament. After that Supreme Court over-ruled the judgment of Golak Nath in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala 1973 with 13 member constitutional bench with 7:6 majority stated that the parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution and in recent Sabrimala Case judgment has been reviewed for the 7 member constitutional bench against the previous judgment.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court on Ayodhya verdict said that in 1949 the statue of Lord Rama placed under the central dome of the mosque was illegal and also the demolition of Babri masjid in 1992 was totally illegal and un-constitutional and also stated that the mosque was built by Babur in 16th century and also further said that the mosque built on land was not made after the demolition of a temple. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Guardian of the Constitution of India After Constitution came into existence minority were offering prayers till 1949 by the Supreme Court in his judgment that there is a proof. Many peoples has witness the mosque with there eyes. A place where namaz offered and there was a mosque then the minorities have the rights to save their right to freedom of religion, in constitution of India they have this as a fundamental rights and it is the responsibility of Hon’ble Supreme Court to safeguard the fundamental right of the people of India. Whatever have happened in the ancient past history we cannot correct all the things then many such temples and mosques will go to break, depending on the history and it is not the responsibility of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to correct it.
And in the last I would like to conclude last opinion that the disputed land shouldn’t have given to the Ram Lalla party. This was the claim of VHP and Bajrang Dal, due to this they can demolish any mosque on the basis of history. I’m very worried because many people will not say these things clearly as I said, “Justice A.K. Ganguly former judge of Supreme Court” and he further said “the correct decision would be either I had said to built a mosque again or if the place is disputed then there would be no mosque or temple built. You should have built a hospital or school there on disputed land”.
Author- Mohd Shamshad Ahmad
Co-Author- Adnan Athar Quraishi
Introduction
In 1528, first Mughal Emperor of India Zaheer-ud-din Mohammad Babur build a mosque named as Babri-Masjid, and it was built by his commander Mir Baqi according to the recognition. But according to Hindu mythology it was the birth place of Lord Rama or infant as Ram Lalla. After that in 1859 the first dispute arose and The British Government created a bond of wires on the land and give a permission to both the parties Hindu and Muslim to worship there respected Gods in Inner and outer area of the land. The inner land was appointed to the Muslims and the outer courtyard was appointed to Hindus for the worship. After 357 years of established Mosque the matter first time went to Court in 1885. Regarding with the disputed land Mahant Raghubeer Das filed a suit in Faizabad District Court for the construction of roof in outer courtyard but the trial was running and delaying. After the Independence in 1949, 23rd December a statue of Lord Rama was placed under the main dome of the mosque and after that Hindus started worshiping regularly and Muslims stopped praying from that time. On 16th January 1950 Gopal Shimla Visharat field an appeal in Faizabad Court for a special permission sought to worship Ram Lalla. On 17th December 1959 Nirmohi Akhara filed a case to modify the disputed land. After that in 1961, 18th December Sunni Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh filed a case for the ownership of Babri Masjid. On 1st February 1986 local court orders the government to open the sites for Hindu worshippers. After that on 25th September 1990 L.K. Advani starts nationwide Rath Yatra from Somnath in Gujarat. On 6th December 1992 Babri Masjid was demolished by karsevaks.
In April 2002 Allahabad High Court begins hearing on ownership of disputed site. After that on Sept.30 2010 High Court in a 2:1 majority rule 3 way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. In the judgment Hon’ble Justice Khan stated that
“both Muslims And Hindus have failed to prove a title over the land. Muslims have failed to prove that the land belonged to Babar under whose orders the mosque was constructed and even the Hindus have not proved that there was a temple existed before the mosque was constructed.”
After the judgment came on the verdict none of the parties were satisfied with this judgment and appealed in the Supreme Court challenging this judgment. 11 other parties also filed a special leave petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict. The Supreme Court stayed the verdict on 9th May 2011.
On 2017 March 21st CJI Justice J.S.Khehar suggest out of court settlement among rival parties, then after on Jan. 25th 2019 SC reconstitutes 5- member Constitution Banch to hear the case as Justice U.U Lalit recuses. The new bench has CJI Gogoi, Justice Bobde, Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan And S.A. Nazir. On 2019 May 9 the three member mediation committee submits interim respects to SC. After that Aug. 1 report of mediation submitted in sealed cover to SC. On Aug 6th SC commences day to day hearing on the disputed land. After that on Oct. 16th 2019 the SC concludes hearing and reserves order.
On November 9th 2019 SC came with the judgment on the disputed land and he stated that
“A temple will come up on the 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya and a five-acre plot at an
alternate site will go for the building of a mosque, the Supreme Court said in a landmark verdict
on the century-old politically sensitive temple-mosque dispute. The five-judge bench led by Chief
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said they should "ensure that a wrong committed must be remedied".
The Sunni Wakf Board will be granted five acres of land in a "suitable, prominent place in
Ayodhya", the top court said, adding that the Muslims should not be deprived of a structure. The
location of the alternate site will be decided by the Central or the state government, the bench
said.
The dispute involved 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya, which right-wing activists believe was the
birthplace of Lord Ram. A 16th Century mosque - said to have been built by the Mughal
Emperor Babur -- which stood at the spot was razed in December 1992 by right-wing activists.
The Muslims were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque on 22/23 December 1949
which was ultimately destroyed on 6 December 1992, the court said.
"There was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims. 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.
Explaining its decision to grant the disputed site for a temple, the court said, the Archaeological
Survey of India has found evidence that the 16th Century mosque of Mughal Emperor Babar was
not built on vacant land.
"On balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the
composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced
by the Muslims,”
Conclusion
With all due respect the judgment given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as a respected person and a citizen of India me and myself respect the judgment and agree with the Hon’ble Supreme Court but some of the things in my opinion are unjust and raising some doubts in my mind as a student of Constitution.
Justice J.S Verma former CJI of India and also he was a chairman of national human rights commission from 1999 to 2003, and also chairman of justice Verma committee report on amendments to criminal law after the 2012 Delhi gang rape case.
Justice J.S. Verma said that “ Supreme Court is indeed Supreme but no infallible” And in many cases in the history of judgment of Supreme Court it has been over-ruled the previous judgment with the review petition to higher bench. In Golak Nath v. State of Punjab 1967 11 member Constitution Bench said with 6:5 majority that any part of the fundamental rights cannot be amended which are sacro-sanct in nature and kept out of reach of parliament. After that Supreme Court over-ruled the judgment of Golak Nath in Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerala 1973 with 13 member constitutional bench with 7:6 majority stated that the parliament can amend the Constitution but cannot change the basic structure of the Constitution and in recent Sabrimala Case judgment has been reviewed for the 7 member constitutional bench against the previous judgment.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court on Ayodhya verdict said that in 1949 the statue of Lord Rama placed under the central dome of the mosque was illegal and also the demolition of Babri masjid in 1992 was totally illegal and un-constitutional and also stated that the mosque was built by Babur in 16th century and also further said that the mosque built on land was not made after the demolition of a temple. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is the Guardian of the Constitution of India After Constitution came into existence minority were offering prayers till 1949 by the Supreme Court in his judgment that there is a proof. Many peoples has witness the mosque with there eyes. A place where namaz offered and there was a mosque then the minorities have the rights to save their right to freedom of religion, in constitution of India they have this as a fundamental rights and it is the responsibility of Hon’ble Supreme Court to safeguard the fundamental right of the people of India. Whatever have happened in the ancient past history we cannot correct all the things then many such temples and mosques will go to break, depending on the history and it is not the responsibility of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to correct it.
And in the last I would like to conclude last opinion that the disputed land shouldn’t have given to the Ram Lalla party. This was the claim of VHP and Bajrang Dal, due to this they can demolish any mosque on the basis of history. I’m very worried because many people will not say these things clearly as I said, “Justice A.K. Ganguly former judge of Supreme Court” and he further said “the correct decision would be either I had said to built a mosque again or if the place is disputed then there would be no mosque or temple built. You should have built a hospital or school there on disputed land”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment