M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors

 

CASE COMMENT

 

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors 

 

Appellant – M Siddiq D Thr Lrs

Respondent – Mahant Suresh Das & Ors

Citation – 10866-10867 of 2010

Date of Judgement – 09 November, 2019

Judge of Bench –CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice

Ashok Bhushan &Justice Abdul Nazeer

 

INTRODUCTION

This case is commonly known as the Ayodhya Dispute Case. The incident was witnessed by all prime ministers of independent India. The controversy is a social, religious, historical and political controversy in India centerer on land plots in Ayodhya city, Uttar Pradesh. This was a very long case and finally the Supreme Court ruled him on November 9,2019.

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. This case is commonly known as the Ayodhya Dispute Case. The incident was witnessed by all prime ministers of independent India. The controversy is a social, religious, historical and political controversy in India centered on land plots in the city of Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh. This was a very long case and finally the Supreme Court ruled him on November 9,2019.

The legal battle over Ayodhya began in 1950 when a petition was first filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, who was refused entry. He was Ayodhya secretary of the Hindu Mahasabha, an organization formed to oppose the secular principle of the Congress party. The court dragged on the issue for almost a decade and in 1959 the Nirmohi Akhara filed another complaint claiming that the area should be in their possession. In response to the above-mentioned lawsuits, the Sunni Central Waqf Council filed a counter-request in 1961. The Council was established by Indian law to protect and preserve Muslim religious and cultural sites.

 

 

Case Facts

This is Ayodhya, inhabited by both Hindus (claiming to be the birthplace of Lord Rama) and Muslims (considering the city with the Babri Mosque built in 1528 by the first Mughal) It was the story of the city. Emperor Babur was built) to live together). The first religious violence in Ayodhya occurred in 1850 over thenearby Hanuman Gali Mosque. Babri Mosque was attacked by Hindus. Local Hindus have always claimed ownership of the land on which the Babri Mosque is built and should be allowed to build temples on it. They believed that the Babri Mosque was built by destroying a Hindu temple. However, their requests werealways denied by the colonial government. On December 22, 1949, a sect of Hindu Mahasaba called Akhilvaratiya Ramayana Mahasaba(ABRM) organized his nine days of uninterrupted recitation of Ramcharitmanas. Eventually, Hindu activists broke into the mosque and erected idols of Rama and Sita inside. Jawaharlal Nehru ordered the removal of the idol, but this was denied by a local official, his K.K.K. Nair, known for his Hindu nationalist ties, claimed this would lead to community unrest.Police closed the gates, barring both Hindus and Muslims from entering. There were idols inside and the mosque had been converted into a de facto temple, so priests were allowed in for daily worship. Both the Sunni Waqf board and his AMRM have filed civil lawsuits in local courts to claim religious rights locally.                   

 

Issues Raised 

The issues at issue in this case concerned the ownership of the land traditionally regarded as the birthplace of Lord Rama and the history of the Babri Mosque.One of the main problem is  this case  is: Statementsfrom Parties to Case.After a lengthy 14-day hearing, the Supreme Court gave all parties to this case three days to file statements clarifying what they were actually praying for. gave. Below is a summary of the written statements made by the various parties in this case.

 

After a lengthy 14-day hearing, the Supreme Court gave all parties in the case three days to respond in writing and clarify what they were praying for. Below is a summary of the written statements made by the various parties in this case.

 

CONTENTIONS TO THE PARTIES

APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS

 

NirmohiAkhara 

• If the verdict favour’s one of the Hindu sects, Akhara must retain the right to serve God. 
• Permission to build a Ram temple on the disputed site should be given, and Nirmohi Ahara should be empowered to manage the site once the temple is built. 
• If the court decides to uphold the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment and declares that the Muslim parties will not carry out any construction work on the disputed land, the court will allow the Muslim parties to grant their rights to the land. You must order to surrender your interest. Hindu party. It was leased for the long term so that a large Ram Temple could be built. (The Allahabad High Court ruling divided the disputed land into three parts: the Sunni Waqf Council, Nirmohhi Ahara and Ram Lala.) 
• The Court told the government that the Muslim side would move out and build the building. It should be ordered to provide the land so that it can be built. Mosques in conflict areas.

Ram Lalla Virajman

 According to a document filed on behalf of Ram Lalla Virajman, the court should grant all disputed lands to Ram Lalla. The Declaration said that no part of the disputed land should be given to Nirmokhi Ahra or Muslim political parties. 
Ram Janambhooomi Pnar Sudhar Samiti  He can only build one Ram temple on the disputed site of Ayodhya. Once the temple is built, a trust must be formed to administer it.

Gopal Singh Visharad 

Gopal Singh Visharad claimed it was his constitutional right to pray to Ram Janmabhooomi as his ancestors had performed rituals in the temple grounds for centuries . His statement said that no compromise-should be made in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi. Sunni Waqf Board The Commission said it wanted the same remedy as wasclaimed at the hearing.Duringthe hearing, Commission CounselRajeev Dhawan called for the Babri Masjid to berestored to its original form before being demolished on December 6, 1992.

Hindu Mahasabha 

The Supreme Court is expected to form a trust to oversee the management of the Ram Temple to be built on the disputed site of Ayodhya.  The Supreme Court should appoint a steward to administer this trust. Shia Waqf Board In a relief vote at the Allahabad High Court, the Muslims said they should abandon their claim to the disputed land and hand it over to the Hindus to build a Ram temple. In a filing, the Shiite Waqf board said a Ram temple should be built at the disputed site in Ayodhya. He said the rightful owner of the disputed land was the Shiite Waqf Council, not the Sunni Waqf Council. Land allocated to the Sunni Waqf Council by Supreme Courtorder should be allocated to Hindu political parties.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

Sunni Central Waqf Commission, UP. Lead attorney Rajeev Dhawan said the idol was secretly installed by Hindus on the night of December 22-23, 1949. They said there was no direct evidence that the land in dispute was the birthplace of Lord Lam.Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora also spokeon behalf of the Board of archaeological  excavations.The results, he argued, show not one structure, but multiple structures spanning different eras. It is not a single gigantic structure as claimed by Hindus.

 

Judgment 

A five-judge chamber of the Supreme Court heard title cases from August to October 2019. On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, delivered its judgment. He reversed a previous ruling and ruled that the land belonged to the government based on tax records.He also ordered the land to be turned over to a trust for the construction of a Hindu temple. He also ordered the government to donate five more acres of land to his Sunni council inWaqf to build a mosque. 
The ten main points emphasized in the judgment in this case are:

The Supreme Court gave the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya to the god Ram Lalla. The Supreme Court has ordered the central and Uttar Pradesh governments allocate a Muslim five hectares of island in exchange for the construction of a prominent mosque. The Court asked the Center to consider giving Nirmohi Akhara some form of representation to set up a trust. Nirmohi Akhara was a third party in the Ayodhya dispute. The Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by her Nirmohi Akhara who sought to control all her disputed lands, claiming shewas her own custodian. The Supreme Court has ordered the federal government to establish a trust within three months to build the Ram Mandir on the disputed site where the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992. Supreme Court said structures underdisputed land in Ayodhya were not Islamic structures, but ASI did not determine whether temples were demolished to make way for mosques . The court also said that while Hindus consider the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, Muslims say the same about the location of the Babri Masjid. The court said that the Hindu belief that Lord Rama was born in Babri where his masjid was also cannot be questioned. The Supreme Court ruled that the demolition of his 16th-century Babri Masjid his mosque in 1992 was also against the law.The Supreme Court read out a ruling that the UP's Waqf Central Sunni Council failed to present its claim in the Ayodhya dispute, proving that Hindus own the disputed outer courtyard.

 

CONCLUSION 

This case is a long-drawn case in the history of Indian judiciary and is significant because it has witnessed every prime minister of India, from Jawaharlal Nehru to Narendra Modi. Ultimately, this dispute was resolved on November 9, 2019. In this ruling, the Supreme Court approached the case in a harmonious way, trying to balance both religions. The Supreme Court gave the entirety of his 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya to God Ram Lalla. The Supreme Court has ordered the central government and the government of Uttar Pradesh to allocate five hectares of land to Muslims in a conspicuous location for the construction of a mosque. In my opinion, we need to focus on the real problems that led to the development of the country, such as poverty, unemployment and agriculture. Do not fall into the religious traps of politicians. Politicians distract us by bringing up these religious issues and the notions of dividend control to win elections. This case is one of those cases, as this controversy came up in the last House of Representatives election.