đIn its long order, the apex court said that the deity Ram Lalla is a juristic entity, which went beyond legal persons and human nature
The Supreme Courtâs five-judge bench, which was headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, based its Ayodhya judgment on three factors â physical evidence (archaeology), social and religious practices, and indirect issues of faith and beliefs. (à”©Catch all live updates on the Ayodhya verdict by Supreme Court here)
êŠOn this basis, it said that Ram Lalla (the infant Lord Ram) was the title holder of the disputed area, the inner and outer courtyards of which comprise a mere 1,500 square yards. The Hindus showed a more exclusive, continued (particularly for the outer courtyard that has the Ram Chabutra), and uninterrupted rights over it, compared to the Muslims, over centuries. It said the archaeological evidence was not conclusive.
đIn its long order, the court said that the deity Ram Lalla is a juristic entity, which went beyond legal persons and human nature. This is ârecognitionâ that an object or corpus has certain rights and duties. This is true of a corporation, which is the âmost widely recognised artificial legal personâ.Â
đŠMore than a century ago, the courts (British ones) recognised the legal personality of the Hindu idols (and Gods). This was done, the apex court said, for two reasons. The first was to guard against the âreal possibility of maladministration by the shebaits (managers of the places of worship)â over the land, donations, and other endowments that were owned and received by places of worship.
ꊊThe second was to intervene when there were threats that âaccess or other religious benefits would be denied to the public, particularly the devoteesâ.
đČAccording to unanimous decision of the CJI-led Constitution Bench, âit was a legal innovation necessitated by historical circumstances, the gap in the existing law and by consideration of convenience.â In addition, there is a public interest to protect the properties that were endowed by the devotees to religious places.
Thus, the law âconfers legal personality on this pious purposeâ, the judgement stated. The idols are âlooked uponâ as the entities on in which the respective properties vest. The idol is legally recognised as an embodiment of the pious or benevolent purposes.
đ In the Ayodhya case, Ram Lalla, who was the first plaintiff in Suit No. 5, which was clubbed with the others, was the âobject of worship for several hundred yearsâ. In addition, his âlegal personality is not dependent on the continued existence of the idolâ.
ꊰThus, the Court recognised Lord Ramâs legal personality. The Court concluded that the Suit No. 5 was âmaintainableâ, i.e, Ram Lalla held the title over the 2.77 acres of disputed area .Â
đOn the basis of social and religious practices, the bench said that the inner and outer courtyards need to be considered as a âcomposite wholeâ. If this is done, the evidence âin respect of possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslimsâ.
In the case of the outer courtyard, the Hindu worship in the area âcontinued unimpededâ despite the grill-brick wall that was built by the British in 1857 to separate the two areas.
âIn 1857, the British allowed Muslims to pray in the inner courtyard, and the Hindus in the outer one. However, the evidence in front of the Supreme Court established that the Hindus worshipped in the inner courtyard prior to the annexation of Oudh (the Awadh region), which included Ayodhya, in 1857.
ꊊIn comparison, the court said, the Muslims âoffered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction (of the mosque) in the sixteenth centuryâ.Â
The Court, therefore, asked the government, which acquired the disputed area and the adjoining land in 1993, to transfer the area to a trust within three months. The trustâs responsibility will be to manage the disputed area, and think of a plan to build a Ram temple on it.
âBut there was evidence that the Muslims regularly offered namaz in the inner structure between 1857 and 1949, and the last one was on December 16, 1949. The Muslimsâ exclusion of the worship and possession of the inner courtyard âtook place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949, when the mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idolsâ.
àŒThis was not because of âany lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worshipâ, the judgment said.
đOn December 6, 1992, the mosque structure was brought down in a âegregious violation of the rule of law", and the Muslims were âwrongly deprived of a mosqueâ that was constructed 450 years ago.
So, the court decided that the Muslims need to be given five acres of land in a prominent area in Ayodhya to build a mosque. The area would be chosen by either the central or state (Uttar Pradesh) government, and the Sunni Waqf Board would have the right to build on it.
đ
When it came to the conclusion of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) that there was an underlying Hindu temple structure underneath the demolished mosque, the court added several caveats.
đȘOne, the ASI failed to provide the reason for the destruction of the âpre-existing structureâ, and whether it was demolished to build a mosque. Two, the underground structure dates to the twelfth century, and there is a âtime gap of about four centuriesâ between its date and the construction of the mosque. The ASI has given no evidence to explain what happened in the intervening period, the court said.Â
áŁFinally, the ASI couldnât prove that the remnants of the Hindu underlying structure were used to build the mosque. âThe pillars that were used in the construction of the mosque were black Kasauti stone pillars. ASI has found no evidence to show that these Kasauti pillars are relatable to the underlying pillar bases found during the course of excavationsâ, said the apex court.