SC stays HC’s ruling on Ayodhya title dispute

In an order, what could be seen as a great relief to a number of people across the country, the Supreme Court annulled the Allahabad High Court’s verdict on the Ayodhya Title suit. The Court stayed the Allahabad HC’s order for the tripartite division of the controversial Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land.

The Allahabad High Court on September 30 last year directed that the 2.77 acre disputed land would be divided into three parts among Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara represented by Ram Lalla, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara.

"There will be no change of situation at ground zero (the make-shift temple of Ram Lalla). The pooja will continue as per the January 7, 1993 order," senior advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad, who is representing Ram Lalla Virajman, told reporters after the Apex Court’s order.

After the demolition of the Masjid on December 6, 1992, the demonstrators created a makeshift temple. On January 7, 1993, the Congress government enacted the Ayodhya Act 1993 which preserved the status quo of the destroyed mosque and limited prayer on the disputed site.

What could be the outcomes now:

First, the Supreme Court may award use of the land to any one of the plaintiffs.

Secondly, the Supreme Court studies the HC judgment and concurs. But these two outcomes are more of statistical probabilities.

Third, the apex court may ask all parties, the Centre and the state government to maintain an indefinite status quo.

Or Fourth, the Apex Court upholding the spirit of a secular, inclusive and progressive nation, may de-link the disputed land from the politico-religious entities fighting for it.

AYODHYA ISSUES

Few minutes later India’s longest and most controversial legal battle will come to an end with the final verdict to be heard by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.  Here we try to understand what this case is all about. Here is a brief look on this historical issue. The 'Title Suit case' covers five suits which involves 28 issues framed by the special Lucknow bench of the Allahabad HC. The issues include:

1. Whether the demolished structure was a mosque as claimed by the plaint Muslim organizations.
2. If so, when was it built and by whom, Mughal emperor Babar or his Awadh governor Mir Baqi Tashqandi.
3. Was it built on the site of a demolished Hindu temple?
4. Whether Muslims prayed in the Babri mosque from time immemorial.
5. Whether they possessed the property openly and continuously from 1528 when it was allegedly built.
6. Whether they possessed it till 1949 when they were dispossessed.
7. Whether the suit was filed too late.
8. Whether the Hindus have earned the right to pray at the site through adverse and continuous possession.
9. Whether the plot is Ram's birthplace.
10. Whether Hindus have worshipped the site as Ram's birthplace from time immemorial.
11. Whether the idols and other objects of worship were placed in the structure on the night of December 22-23, 1949, or whether they had been there before.
12. Whether the Ram chabutra, the raised platform adjacent to the disputed structure, as well as the Bhandar and Sita Rasoi were demolished along with the main structure.
13. Whether the land adjoining the structure on its east, north and south housed an ancient graveyard and a mosque.
14. Whether the structure is 'landlocked' and cannot be reached except by passing through Hindus' places of worship around it.
15. Whether no mosque can come into existence on the plot in view of Islamic tenets (because idols have been placed there).
16. Whether the structure could not legally be a mosque since it did not have minarets.
17. Whether it could not be a mosque as it is hemmed in by a graveyard from three sides.
18. Whether, after the demolition, it can still be called a mosque.
19. Whether Muslims can use the open ground at the site as a mosque to offer prayers following the demolition of the structure.
20. Whether and what relief, if any, the plaintiffs (Muslim organisations) are entitled to.

Here is a brief look on these three judges who will announce the verdict are:

Sibghat Ullah Khan
Sibghat Ullah Khan was born on Jan 31, 1952. He was graduated from the Aligarh Muslim University in law in 1975. He also completed a graduation in science from the AMU in 1971 and enrolled as an advocate in the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council in 1975. He was lifted as additional judge on Oct 5, 2005 and later as a permanent Judge of the High Court on Dec 21, 2002. SU Khan was nominated on the special bench of Allahabad High Court on Dec 11, 2009, handling the Ayodhya title suits.

Sudhir Agarwal

Sudhir Agarwal was born on April 24, 1958. He was graduated in science from Agra University in 1977 and graduated in law from Meerut University. He enrolled as an advocate on Oct 5, 1980 and began his career. He was lifted as an additional judge on Oct 5, 2005 and later as an permanent judge on Aug 8, 2007. Sudhir Agarwal was nominated on the special bench of Allahabad High Court handling the Ayodhya title suits on Sept 18, 2008.

Dharam Veer Sharma

Dharam Veer Sharma was born on Oct 2, 1948. He was graduated in law in 1970 and appointed in the Provincial Civil Services (Judicial) in 1972. Later in 2002, he was lifted as district and sessions judge and then promoted to the post of additional judge in the high court on Oct 20, 2005. He became a permanent judge in Sep 17, 2009 and nominated to the three-member bench on Feb 12, 2007.