To the relief of many, on 9 November, 2019, after 41 days of hearing, the Supreme Court of India finally legally settled the 135 year old, highly contentious Babri Masjid—Ram Mandir conflict.
Despite the fact that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board has expressed its intent to file a review, there has been an overall sentiment of acceptance, coupled with both appreciation and criticism, in response to the judgment.
The respect for the verdict of the court can be attributed to the manner in which the five-judge bench has sugar-coated the defeat of the Muslim community while respecting Hindu religious sentiments.
This is clearly seen in the concluding statement of the judgment which regrets the destruction of the Babri Masjid and sees it as a sign of wrongfully depriving the Muslim community of a place of public worship. However, this was immediately followed with a denial of their claim to the disputed property.
Concurrently, the court granted exclusive title of the area to the Hindu community, and awarded the Muslim community with an alternate piece of land in an attempt to satiate them.
While the alternate piece of land provides a practical solution that, in essence, should be acceptable to both the communities, it can also be construed as a consolation prize for the atrocities faced by the Muslims caused by the outright attack on their place of worship and its aftermath. There are various accounts that detail horror stories of the destruction of the Babri Masjid followed by violence leading to over a thousand deaths in Ayodhya. The distrust amongst the communities has spilled over throughout the country, ranging from Gujarat to Assam to Tamil Nadu.
The court has condemned the destruction of the mosque by stating that “the destruction of the mosque took place in breach of the order of status quo and an assurance given to the court. The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law”.
Yet, the court has refused to recognise this blatant disregard for the law as supportive of the Muslim community’s claim to the property. Instead, expresses its duty to refrain from engaging in political and religious debates, and consequently refused to hurt the religious sentiments of the entire community for the illegal acts of a few of its members.
Therefore, while the judgment provides a seemingly pragmatic solution to the age old issue, it is also rife with inconsistencies. The verbose 1045-paged judgment is blighted by contradictory arguments and hypocrisy while analysing issues that relate to the sentiments of both the communities. Thus, while the judgment has seemingly delivered peace and harmony to a fractious societal issue, it is necessary to address the anomalies of its verdict.
The court explicitly stated that in deciding on issues relating to title of property, there needs to be a strict evidentiary standard that must be adhered to, rather than reliance on beliefs and faith. Throughout the judgment, the judges deliberately expressed their intention to refrain from adjudicating on religious issues and the devotion of individuals.
Yet, the court’s judgment is predicated on the belief of the Hindu community that the disputed area is the birthplace of Lord Ram. This stands against the factual assertion by the Muslim Community that this property is the site of the Babri Masjid which was destroyed in violation of a court order.
The belief of the Hindu community, coupled with their past utilisation of the property for religious purposes, formed the basis of judges’ justification for allocating the disputed property for exclusive use by the Hindus. The court considered the fact that “there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857” and used this religious practice to establish the Hindus' right to gain an exclusive title to the property.
Certain portions of the judgment claim that the sanctity of the disputed property for the Muslims will not be adjudicated upon as it is beyond the scope of the powers of the court. However, the judgment justified the relief given to the Hindu community by stating time and again that the Hindu community believed the significance of the location of the disputed property. This was pitched against the argument of the Muslim community, who were disputing the destruction of an existing religious structure, irrespective of the location in which it was constructed.
Therefore, the judges overlooked self-imposed restrictions–which disallowed the court from passing judgments on matters relating to religion–to reach conclusions which affected the rights of all the parties involved. This inevitably draws the suspicion that the court has prioritised the religious beliefs of one community over legal rights of the other.
The Supreme Court declared that the judgment was unanimous and has suspiciously refrained from declaring who the author of the judgment was. This indicates that the court did not want to risk associating the opinions in the judgment with any particular judge due to the volatile nature of the issue.
The court has also refused to comment on the probability of acts of violence, similar to those done in Ayodhya, that are being threatened in Mathura and Varanasi. Additionally, the cases that had been filed to convict those responsible for the illegal destruction of the Babri Masjid continue to circle the lower courts, and the victims still await justice.
Thus, while the judgment has resolved the matter in a manner that has not caused any bouts of violence, the question that arises is: Is the court justified in rejecting the rights of one due to fear of violence from another?
Reference List
Siddiq (D) and Ors. v. Mahant Suresh Das and Ors., Civil Appear Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, Supreme Court of India
Ramanathan, R. & Dalwai, S. (2017). Babri Masjid, 25 Years on. New Delhi: Kalpaz Publications.
State Bureau Reports (2011, December 5). Bloody aftermath of Babri Masjid demolition across India. India Today. Retrieved on 28 November 2019, from https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/babri-masjid-bloody-aftermath-across-india-147823-2011-12-05.
Mahapatra, D. (2019, November 10). Author of Ayodhya verdict not named, but it bears Chandrachud’s imprint. Times of India. Retrieved on 28 November 2019, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/author-of-ayodhya-verdict-not-named-but-it-bears-chandrachuds-imprint/articleshow/71989381.cms.
Hansen, T.B. (2017, December 7). Babri Masjid and Its Aftermath Changed India Forever. The Wire. Retrieved on 28 November 2019, from https://thewire.in/communalism/babri-masjid-aftermath-changed-india-forever.
Frayer, F. (2019, April 25). Nearly 27 Years After Hindu Mob Destroyed a Mosque, the Scars in India Remain Deep. NPR. Retrieved on 28 November 2019, from https://www.npr.org/2019/04/25/711412924/nearly-27-years-after-hindu-mob-destroyed-a-mosque-the-scars-in-india-remain-dee.
Subrahmaniam, V. (2019, November 22). The Ayodhya Verdict: When Fear Struck Muslims Prayed to Lose. The Hindu Centre. Retrieved on 28 November 2019, from https://www.thehinducentre.com/the-arena/current-issues/article30024468.ece.
Fazal, T. (2019, November 15). Some Questions on the Ayodhya Verdict. The Hindu Business Line. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/some-questions-on-ayodhya-verdict/article29985922.ece.
Mishra, S. (2019, November 11). Looking at the Pros and Cons of #Ayodhya judgement. ORF Online. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/looking-at-the-pros-and-cons-of-ayodhya-judgement-57681/.
Venkataraman, K. (2019, November 10). Ayodhya Verdict|Unimpleded right in the outer courtyard wins whole site for Hindus. The Hindu. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/unimpeded-right-in-outer-courtyard-wins-whole-site-for-hindus/article29932633.ece.
Malik OPS. (2019, November 9). What is Ayodhya Case: From Babar era to numerous court orders, how fait accompli always dictated fate of disputed site. First Post. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.firstpost.com/politics/what-is-ayodhya-case-from-babar-era-to-numerous-court-orders-how-fait-accompli-always-dictated-fate-of-disputed-site-7598031.html.
Mushtaq, I. (2019, November 11). Read the Suit-Wise Summar of the Ayodhya Judgment. The Leaflet. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://theleaflet.in/read-the-suit-wise-summary-of-the-ayodhya-judgment/.
Katju, V. (2019, November 20). The riddle of Paragraph 652 in the Ayodhya order. Hindustan Times. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-riddle-of-paragraph-652-in-the-ayodhya-order/story-aPOiElXhk4yk4YRUzvKBpK.html.
Jagtiani, H. & Jain S. (2019, November 18). The Ayodhya Judgement: A Tapestry of Wisdom. Free Press Journal. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.freepressjournal.in/analysis/the-ayodhya-judgement-a-tapestry-of-wisdom.
Arun T.K. (2019, November 10). How the Ayodhya Verdict Retains the Secular Fabric of the Indian State. Economic Times. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/view-how-the-ayodhya-verdict-retains-the-secular-fabric-of-the-indian-state/articleshow/71998083.cms.
Mathur, A. (2019, November 11). How Ayodhya Bench Closed Doors for Future Mandir-Masjid Conflicts. India Today. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/how-ayodhya-bench-closed-doors-for-future-mandir-mandir-conflicts-1617904-2019-11-11.
Dutta, P.K. (2019, November 9). Ayodhya verdict in Supreme Court: How the CJI-Led Bench Arrived at the Historic Judgment. India Today. Retrieved on 28 November 2019 from https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/ayodhya-verdict-in-supreme-court-how-cji-led-bench-arrived-at-historic-judgment-1617367-2019-11-09.
Image Source: The Print