AYODHYA LAND DISPUTE VERDICT: A SOCIO-LEGAL PERSPECTIVE

admin | May 28, 2021 | Law | No Comments

Picture courtesy: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-supreme-court-mediation-panel-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-1521574-2019-05-10

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY NITHIKA ELIZABETH REBELLO, A STUDENT OF SCHOOL OF LAW, CHRIST UNIVERSITY.

INTRODUCTION

“Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards) where angels fear to tread …. It is full of innumerable landmines.” -Justice Sibghat Ullah Khan.

The long-standing contest over a 1500 square yard plot of land, situated in the city of Ayodhya, located in the district of Faizabad in the state of Uttar Pradesh in north India, has become a site where religious groups, pilgrims, lawyers, and even gods are battling to establish their claims of rightful ownership. The issue had been simmering in independent India since its birth in 1947 and arose well before that time. The courts have been called upon time and again to adjudicate on this fraught issue, where their decisions are not only defining the parameters of the right to freedom of religion, but are implicated in the very construction of faith and belief.

In the Allahabad High Court order in 2010, the three judges of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the disputed land be divided into three parts: – one part to the Nirmohi Akhara, one to the Sunni Waqf Board and the third to the deity Ram Lalla represented by the Vishva Hindu Parishad. However, in November 2019, the dispute over the plot of land finally came to an end. The Supreme Court vacated the previous decision of the Allahabad High Court. It ruled that the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara was barred by limitation. It also rejected the Nirmohi Akhara’s claim of being the shebait (devotee of the deity Ram Lalla); and it held that while Ram Janmabhoomi has no juristic personality, Ram Lalla was a juristic person with legal rights.[1] Instead, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous verdict for the construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site by the Hindu Mahasabha and also held that an alternate five-acre plot would be given to the Sunni Waqf Board as compensation to build a mosque. However, this verdict has raised a lot of questions in relation to upholding constitutional values and principles while passing the judgement.

HINDU MAJORITARIANSIAM AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION

The Ayodhya case raised questions regarding the meaning of secularism and the right to freedom of religion[2] in India. The argument from the Hindu party for their right to worship at the site in Ayodhya was based on the Hindu faith. They have also succeeded in diminishing the rights of worship of the Muslim minority community. Their interventions are justified in and through the discourse of secularism in ways that seem reasonable, logical, and highly persuasive, while at the same time based on Hindu majoritarianism[3]. State neutrality when it comes to religion needs to be manifested in order to understand secularism and the Hindu Right. State neutrality does not prevent the protection of the rights of religious minorities.

In the Ayodhya case, claims of the Hindu Right were very much based on the freedom of religion as compared to any case before. The Hindu parties have pursued a more substantive notion of freedom of religion which recognizes that religious identity is necessarily constituted in and through a broader community to practice their religion collectively. The Muslim parties were more focused on title and possession, rather than the right to worship, though providing evidence of worship was used to try to establish title/adverse possession. Therefore, it is contented in the Ayodhya case, the right to freedom of religion played a much more significant role in the arsenal of the Hindu Right than in the hands of the Muslims. The Hindu Right’s mobilization of the right to freedom of religion at one level appears to revitalize and democratize secularism. It implies that the playing field for minorities and majorities is equal. Yet the trouble with Ayodhya case is not one of legal discourse alone. Freedom of religion needs to be re-appropriate to defend the ways of Muslims and people who do not comply with the Hindu Right’s majoritarian impulses.

POLYTHEISM AND THE RULE OF LAW

Rule of law[4] simply means that no man is above the law and all persons need to be governed in a non-arbitrary manner. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[5] the Supreme court in clear words observed that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in state actions and ensures fairness and equality in treatment. The Ayodhya verdict however, seems to have diluted aspects of the rule of law in order to gratify the belief of a community[6].

The Supreme Court knowing the religious aspect of the dispute emphasized on cases such as S. R. Bommai v. Union of India[7] to highlight the importance of concepts like secularism and fraternity in the Constitution of India. The court also focused on the relevance of the Places of Worship Act, 1991[8] in relation to its preservation of non-retrogression. A sector of the Hindu community was of the belief that Ayodhya was a birthplace of a Hindu deity but this does not seem as a ground for adjudication of a title dispute. This is in opposition to the case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala[9] where the court favoured constitutional morality over beliefs. Therefore, it is contended that principles of rule of law seem compromised in the verdict.

PRIORITISING PUBLIC PEACE

In Rajendra Singh v. Zahoor Ahmad and Ors. the Allahabad high court order passed that the Muslim parties should receive one-third of the disputed land[10]. The reason why the Supreme Court potentially disagreed with the Allahabad high court order was because the Supreme Court was of the belief that splitting the disputed land could disturb the peace and public order. One of the key elements of the Supreme Court’s rationale[11] of handing over the disputed site to the Hindu litigants was that there would be a sense of tranquility. However, handing over the entire land to the Hindu party would prioritize public peace over full justice. Even though the Muslim litigants accepted the 5 acres of compensatory land in the final judgement, full justice would have been granted to them only if there was a way to undo the illegal act in which the Babri Masjid was demolished. Therefore, the compensatory land handed to the Muslim litigants can easily be regarded as a political compromise[12] in the light of maintaining social harmony. The case of K.K Saravana Babu v. State of Tamil Nadu[13] and another highlights the importance of maintaining public order as the supreme court ruled that the detenu cannot be said to have indulged in activities prejudicial to the public order.

AYODHYA VERDICT AS A VICTORY OF SECULARISM

The Ayodhya verdict can be a starting point for a new era of secularism and pluralism while marking the end of political polarization. The Muslim parties have accepted the verdict and abided by the rule of law. After years and years of deliberation, the case has been put to rest now. The verdict was made keeping in mind the prevention of backlash from the minorities. The victory is based upon secular principles. The Ayodhya judgment did result in a victory for the majority and coincidentally for the mob that demolished the Babri Masjid, but the judgment clearly shows disapproval and disavowal of the mob. This has to be projected as the victory of secularism[14].

WAS IT A WIN FOR HINDUTVA?

The decision fits squarely within the BJP’s overt Hindu nationalist agenda as the party has long portrayed the Babri masjid as a sign of oppression of Hindus at the hands of the Muslim Mughal empire. Indeed, an analysis of the SC judgment reveals that the verdict is somewhat contradictory with evidentiary conclusions the court reached. For instance, while the court decided that excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) at the site revealed the “existence of a pre-existing underlying structure dating back to the twelfth century” symbolic of temple architecture, it also states that the report does not provide the reason for the destruction of the pre-existing structure and that there was no evidence to suggest this “structure was demolished for the purpose of the construction of the mosque.”[15] While the court held that “a finding of title cannot be based in law on the archaeological findings which have been arrived at by ASI,” no evidence indicates the existence of a temple specifically. The court thus contradicted itself in favouring construction of the Ram temple anyway. The court also weighed Muslim and Hindu interests in an imbalanced manner. It mandated that Muslims prove their exclusive possession of the land without calling for Hindus to do the same. Although the court deemed destruction of the mosque by Hindu mobs illegal, it not only green lighted the building of a Ram temple, but, in a glaring omission, also avoided any discussion about penalties against those involved in demolition of the mosque and suggestions to expedite the ongoing trials of those involved in post-demolition bloodshed against Muslims. Instead of depoliticizing the dispute, the verdict has advanced the interests of majoritarian Hindu nationalists who want to transform India into a Hindu Rashtra. It has also set a dangerous precedent by validating faith-based violence, especially in the backdrop of existing communal tensions in India. In the past, Hindu nationalists have also targeted historical monuments in India named after Muslims, including mosques, to attack. Thus, the verdict could be seen by these groups as justification for further razing of mosques to make way for temple-building.

CONCLUSION- THE WAY FORWARD AND FATE OF THE REPUBLIC

The way forward is for the government to achieve a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of collective entities and the state. A judgement should ensure that it takes into account the level of urgency and importance of the claims made. Collective welfare occurs only when people are satisfied with the change. The Ayodhya case consists of intertwined issues regarding land, archaeology, religion, beliefs and politics. However, the verdict combines the judicious balance of law, constitutional practice of secularism, legal history of case, constitutional notion of justice, practical wisdom and Indian tradition of providing context specific solution with its inherent flexibility and ambiguity required to manage its enormous social diversities[16]. The Ayodhya verdict can serve as an indicator for all Indians to coexist together.

[1] THE PRINT, https://theprint.in/opinion/heres-why-supreme-courts-ayodhya-verdict-differed-with-allahabad-high-courts-2010-ruling/318383/ (last visited April 9, 2021).

[2] INDIA CONST. art. 25.

[3] Ratna Kapur, The Ayodhya Case: Hindu majoritarianism and the Right to Religious Liberty, 29 Md. J. Int’l L. 305 (2014), (April 11, 2021, 9:22 PM), https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol29/iss1/14/.

[4] INDIA CONST. art. 14.

[5] Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1 S.C.C. 248

[6] RIGHTSVIEWS, https://blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/rightsviews/2019/12/11/the-ayodhya-ruling-and-the-rule-of-law/ (last visited April 11, 2021).

[7] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.

[8] Places of Worship Act, 1991, No. 42, Acts of Parliament, 1991 (India).

[9] Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1690.

[10] Rajendra Singh v. Zahoor Ahmad and Ors., No. 1 of 1989.

[11] THE WIRE, https://thewire.in/law/ayodhya-dispute-public-justice (last visited April 14, 2021).

[12] THE HINDU, https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/peace-and-justice/article29938535.ece (last visited April 10, 2021).

[13] K.K Saravana Baby v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2008 9 SCC 89.

[14] THE WIRE, https://thewire.in/law/the-ayodhya-verdict-is-the-victory-of-secularism (last visited April 11, 2021).

[15] THE WIRE, https://thewire.in/law/ayodhya-verdict-supreme-court-judgment (last visited April 9, 2021).