A special Full Bench of Justices S.U. Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D.V. Sharma of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court will pronounce its verdict on the Ayodhya title suits on Thursday. The final hearing began on July 23, 1996, and verdict was reserved on July 26 this year.
On one side are a number of Hindu plaintiffs, who claim that the disputed site belongs to them and is the spot where a Ram temple once existed. On the other is the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board, which maintains that the site, where the Babri Masjid stood for five centuries before being demolished by mobs on December 6, 1992, is a Muslim place of worship.
The present legal battle over title has gone on for nearly 60 years. On Thursday, the court is expected to rule on that and also perhaps answer several questions framed by itself in the course of the suit. These include whether the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram and whether the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a temple there. According to the Wakf Board, the Muslims offered prayers at the mosque from 1528, when it was built by Mughal emperor Babur, up to 1949, when the gates were locked by the local administration after some miscreants — with the connivance of officials — surreptitiously placed Ram idols inside the mosque.
The mosque was razed by kar sevaks brought to the site by leaders from various parts of the country. In their submissions, the Hindu plaintiffs said their right to worship the deity of Ram Lalla, or the infant Ram, at the disputed site must be recognised by the court as “millions of Hindus” have for “several centuries” believed it to be the Lord's birthplace. Their lawyers adduced historical accounts by foreign travellers suggesting that not only before 1528, but even thereafter, Hindus have held the place itself in great reverence.
The case timeline
Idols of Rama Lalla were placed surreptitiously in the middle of the floor space under the central dome on December 23, 1949. Soon thereafter, devotees assembled there to worship. On December 29, 1949, the city magistrate exercised control over the whole area.
The first suit was filed on January 16, 1950 by Gopal Simla Visharad in the Faizabad civil court for exclusive rights to perform pooja to Ram Lalla. He sought a restraint order on removal of the idols and a temporary injunction was issued. This order was later confirmed by the civil judge and later by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court.
On December 5, 1950, Paramahansa Ramachandra Das also filed a suit for continuation of the pooja and keeping the idols in the Babri structure. This was pending till August 1990, when out of sheer frustration he withdrew the case.
The third suit was filed in 1959 by the Nirmohi Akhara, seeking a direction to hand over charge of the disputed site from the receiver. The fourth suit was filed in 1961 by the U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board for a declaration and possession. The fifth suit was filed on July 1, 1989 in the name of Bhagwan Shree Ram Lalla Virajman for a declaration and possession.
On February 1, 1986, a district judge ordered the locks on the mosque removed and the site was opened for Hindu worshippers. Two years earlier, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had begun a campaign to “liberate” the so-called birthplace of Lord Rama, and the 1986 decision was widely seen at the time as an attempt by the Congress — then in power at the Centre and in U.P. — to upstage the VHP and the Bharatiya Janata Party.
In 1989, the four suits pending in the Faizabad civil court were transferred to the High Court on an application moved by the U.P. Advocate-General.
On October 10, 1991, the U.P. government acquired the 2.77-acre of land around the disputed structure for the convenience of devotees who attend Ram Lalla darshan. On January 7, 1993, the Government of India, with the consent of Parliament, took over some 67 acres of land all around the disputed area and sought the Supreme Court's opinion on whether there existed a Hindu place of worship before the disputed structure was built. But it declined to answer the question. On October 24, 1994, it turned the case back to the Lucknow Bench of the High Court and the suits were heard again from 1996.
Long legal history
In fact, the first suit was filed in 1885, when the Faizabad Deputy Commissioner refused to let Mahant Raghubar Das build a temple on land adjoining the mosque. Das then filed a title suit in a Faizabad court against the Secretary of State for India, seeking permission to build a temple on the Chabutra on the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid.
His suit was dismissed on grounds that the alleged demolition of an original Ram temple in 1528 had occurred over 350 years earlier, and so it was “too late now” to remedy the grievance. “Maintain status quo. Any innovation may cause more harm than any benefit,” the court said. This suit was revived in 1950.
In August 2002, the High Court ordered a survey by the Archaeological Survey of India to find out whether a temple existed below the mosque or not.
In fact, the first suit was filed in 1885, when the Faizabad Deputy Commissioner refused to let Mahant Raghubar Das build a temple on land adjoining the mosque. Das then filed a title suit in a Faizabad court against the Secretary of State for India, seeking permission to build a temple on the Chabutra on the outer courtyard of the Babri Masjid.
His suit was dismissed on grounds that the alleged demolition of an original Ram temple in 1528 had occurred over 350 years earlier, and so it was “too late now” to remedy the grievance. “Maintain status quo. Any innovation may cause more harm than any benefit,” the court said. This suit was revived in 1950.
These are the keywords.
Very nice article which narrates about the Case.The Verdict given is unsatisfactory.The Court was diplomatic. I have few questions running in mind...A owner of the land when finds some coins in his land , is it not his responsibility to give them back to the Governement and the land to Government, same is the case here when some idols were found it completely belongs to Lord Rama, it is not the question of Secularism...it is the question of righteousness...The Land should be completely given to Hindus wihtout hurting the sentiments of other religons...
Better to build a statue of our country than building a Mandir or Masjid .
Gist of ASI report says that the Masjid was built in 16th century after demolishing a mammoth structure of religious nature that spanned 30x50 mts in dimension. This structure itself was built over another that was demolished in 11/12th century by Ghorid's invasion. The first structure that stood there is dated between 1000 B.C. to 300 B.C.
All these findings lead us to strongly believe that the very spot was of religious significance to Hindus for 3000 years.
iam very happy about this judgment
because all religions are happy
finally my request any one never face injustice in India
Ayodhya, Kashi and Mathura are as much matters of faith are as Jerusalem, Mecca, Medina and the Vatican for both Christians and Muslims. There is a whole lot of mythology and belief that goes behind the stories that make these cities places of religious pilgrimage for Christians and Muslims.
It does not matter whether the place in question was the birthplace or not of Lord Ram. Even british authority in pre-independence India did not deny the the fact that a hindu religious stucture was destroyed and in it's place the mosque was built in 1528. Their contention was that in 1885 it was only too late for undoing the wrong. The scientific reasons recognise the fact that the remains of a hindu religious structure remains under the now demolished mosque. Those peaceniks who talks about humanitarian love have not suffered themselves from enough muslim barbarism like the ones committed in Mumbai and New york and more so those in east and west Pakistan since 1940's. These people are nothing but a bunch of hindu hypocrites.
What if a Central University is established in the location.
We keep reading about the 2002 order to the ASI to find out whether a temple did exist. Whatever happened to that survey and its results?????
I HAVE MYSELF VISITED THE SITE TO FIND THE LOGICS BEHIND THE DISPUTE.ARCHEOLOGICAL DIGGING HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT OUT THE TRUTH THAT OLD RAMJANMBHUMI TEMPLE WAS DEMOLISHED BY BABAR TO MAKE A MOSQUE IN HIS NAME. ANYBODY CAN GO AND FIND OUT THE TRUTH WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY HISTORY AS WELL.ALL INDIANS SHOULD HONOUR THE TRUTH.
The respected court's observation "maintain status quo. Any innovation may cause more harm than benefit," came to realization in due course of time.
In her article, Neena Vyas mentions why BJP does not go to 'mandir wahin banayenge' stance. She has missed the Bihar elections, which is the case in point. BJP will be wary of saying or doing anything which might affect the alliance in Bihar, where Nitish Kumar has been their only formidable ally till now. It is good for India that judgement comes now because BJP 'will not do much' with Bihar elections just around the corner.
What ever the verdict, can't they defer it until after CWG Delhi 2010?
Let us both live together with love.
by Sanghamitra Malik
Ram knows the same sun that Rahim also finds shinning above,
Shyam looks at the same moon that Shahid admires and loves,
To quench their thirst ,they both drink the very same water,
It is the very same food they eat to satisfy their hunger,
Look at those beautiful flowers there,what is their religion?
Look at those trees and lovely birds,do they too have any religion?
They give happiness to Ram just as much as they please Rahim,
Ram and Rahim laugh together and sing songs and even recite poems.
When they feel hurt, tears flow from the eyes of both Ram and Rahim,
When they are injured, it is the same red blood that flows from within.
When we know that Iswar and Allah are present everywhere,
How can we close them up within four walls of a masjid or a mandir?
The article on the history of the Ayodhya case is lucid and very informative.The background of the case is not known to many.
Very Informative article on history of the issue. Unbiased and with true spirit of journalism. What was the outcome of the survey mentioned at the last para ?. Even if they prove that the temple existed before, there is no way to prove it as Ram's Birthplace though.
Look at how these fools fight over imaginary characters and stories. I wish the verdict is not to give the land to either of Hindu or the Muslim religious fanatics. Instead the land may, for example, go to building a hospital or a school or a park dedicated to equality of all religions and races. It is high time people should learn to put humanity above religious, national and racial borders. Otherwise the doom of the entire human race is not far.
The author has left out the report of the ASI which found a temple structure below the Babri.
Please Email the Editor