Ayodhya verdict | Can court ask a secular State to construct a temple?

Ayodhya judgment raises several questions for jurists to answer

November 11, 2019 08:42 pm | Updated November 28, 2021 11:12 am IST - New Delhi

File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya

File photo of stone carving on pillars, slabs and bricks at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi Trust workshop in Ayodhya

The Ayodhya judgment has raised several questions for jurists to answer. Prominent among these is whether the Supreme Court’s direction to the Central government to formulate a scheme and set up a trust to facilitate the construction of a temple on the disputed land would amount to a breach of the secular character of the State.

Can a secular State be ordered to facilitate the construction of a temple, which is an essential part of the Hindu belief? Does this not amount to a secular State fostering a particular religion?


Justice K. Chandru, former Madras High Court judge, referred to the nine-judge Bench judgment in the S.R. Bommai case of 1994 in this regard. “The Bommai decision clearly said the State should be divorced from religion,” he said.

The Bommai judgment said the concept of secular State was essential in a democracy. “State is neither pro-particular religion nor anti-particular religion. It stands aloof, in other words maintains neutrality in matters of religion and provides equal protection to all religions,” it observed.

‘No breach of constitutional secularism’

Eminent jurist, Upendra Baxi, however, said there was no breach of constitutional secularism involved in the Centre being given the responsibility.

Former National Law School India University (NLSIU) Bengaluru Vice-Chancellor and eminent constitutional expert R. Venkata Rao, agreed. “The inscription of the Supreme Court is ‘yato dharma tato jaya’ [where there is dharma there is victory]. It is taken from the Bhagavad Gita. Now, it defies logic to say the Supreme Court is a religious institution,” he said.

Mr. Baxi said the Centre was already empowered under Section 6 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act,1993 to vest the disputed land in a trust or authority. He pointed out that Section 7(1) of the 1993 Act allowed the disputed property to be “maintained by the government or by any person or trustees of any trust, authorities”. The validity of the 1993 Act was also upheld by the Supreme Court.

But Justice Chandru argued that the Ayodhya Act was upheld only as an “interim measure so that land was not tampered with or frittered away when the case of its title and possession was still under litigation”.

He questioned why the apex court directed the Centre – which was not a party to the Ayodhya title suits or appeals - to formulate a scheme for the land. The court could have very well asked the local civil court under Section 92 (g) of the Code of Civil Procedure to settle a scheme for the land.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.