AYODHYA JUDGEMENT-SUMMARY
Writing crux of this judgement was not any easy task for me as well because this judgement spreaded over 1045 pages and discussed numerous issues and when I was reading and making summary, the problem before me was what to include or what not? But to reduce this judgement into readable strength, I mainly focused on core question which was the bone of contention.
Further, for the sake of authenticity I have written page numbers of this judgement against paragraphs (wherever required) so that you can cross-verify or read in detail if you feel so.
The bone of contention before the SC was "Whether disputed structure is the holy birth place of Lord Rama?" because neither the High Court was able to decide this nor ASI report able to unearth whether Babri Masjid was constructed after demolishing temple or not. Therefore, SC came into picture. The SC noticed the serious flaws of decree of partition by the High Court. [Do read this part for better understanding]
Now, let's navigate in books, and other evidences to know "Whether disputed structure is the holy birth place of Lord Rama?" Do have little patience because this journey going little lengthy after all we are going to uncover history spreaded over more than 1000 years.
It was Suit No. 4 which stated that Babri Mosque was constructed in 1528 by Mir Baqi on the order of Emperor Babur; this arguments led by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, a counsel on behalf of Muslim parties. He further stated that there are no evidence of any earlier time that Hindus had faith and belief that where the Masjid was constructed was birthplace of Lord Ram. Basically he raised two questions, one on Faith of Hindus and second on Evidence. He raised questions on location of Ram Janma Bhumi given in Skanda Purana. He did not place his reliance on book various historical books. Dr. Dhawan submitted that statement in travelogues are all hearsay and those travellers were only story tellers on which no reliance can be placed, and raised questions against other evidences as well which put forth by counsels on behalf of Hindus.
How Hon'ble SC uncovered the layer of complexities over the mammoth evidences was the most interesting part of this whole judgement. To make its task a little easier, the SC divided all such evidences related to different periods into three parts:
- First period is before 1528,
- Second from 1528 to 1858, and
- Third period after 1858 to 1949.
PERIOD EARLIER TO 1528 A.D.
Since Dr Dhawan raised question of faith, so the SC by saying that the religious scriptures are the main sources of hindu faith, started from Epic Valmiki Ramayana. Valmiki Ramayan, Balakand, Canto XVIII Shlokas 8 to 12 refers to birth of Lord Ram with planetary situation and associate birth of Lord Ram with Ayodhya.[Page 961]
The next scripture was Skanda Purana. Shlokas 18 to 25 are quite relevant because these Shlokas describes the location of Ram Janma Asthan [Page 963]. The above legends of Skanda Purana also mentioned in the Ayodhya Mahatmya which led to verification of Ram Janma Bhumi.
Swami Avimuktswaranand Sarswati in his examination-in-chief, has stated about visit to Ayodhya following the procedure given in Skanda Purana and having darshan of Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi with assistance from the stone boards fixed in accordance with the serial prescribed in Skanda Puran and proves the then geographical situation.[Page 970]
In this journey, Historical books of Sikh Cult were also referred. Amongst all, Janma Sakhis records visit of Shri Guru Nanak Dev ji at Ayodhya and Darshan of Ram Janma Bhoomi. The period during which Shri Guru Nanak Dev ji went to Ayodhya and had darshan stated to be 1510-1511 A.D. The SC observed that the visit of Guru Nanak Dev ji in 1510-11 A.D. and to have darshan of Janma Bhumi of Lord Ram do support the faith and beliefs of the Hindus[Page 994].
Thus it was found that in the period prior to 1528 A.D. , there were sufficient religious text which led that Hindus to believe site of Ram Janma Bhoomi as the Birth place of Lord Ram.
Faith and belief regarding Janma Asthan during the period 1528 A.D. to 31.10.1858.:
Dr. Dhawan raised the questions on admissibility of various Gazetteers and Travelogues as evidences which provide sufficient proofs for the existence of Ram Janma Bhoomi as the birth place of Lord Ram during the said period. So, the SC referred that this Court earlier held that Gazetteer is an official document of some value as it is complied by experience officials with great care. [Sukhdev Singh vs. Maharaja Bahadur of Gidhaur AIR 1951 SC 288] and admissibility of history books and Travelogues can not be denied in view of section 57 of Evidence Act [facts of which Court must take judicial notice].
A-in-i-Akhbari contains the minutest details of administration in the regime of the Akbar. This historical books is attestation of the faith and belief held by Hindus in the period of Emperor Akbar. Ayodhya was mentioned as residence of Lord Ram ji. It also unmistakably refers Ayodhya as one of the holiest place of antiquity. This clearly shows that Hindu belief was continuing since period of Akbar and still continues as on date.[Page 1005]
Father Joseph Tieffenthaler visited India between 1766-1771 A.D. He wrote historical and geographical description of India in Latin wherein he mentioned that Emperor Aurengzebe got the Fortress called Ramcot demolished and got a muslim temple, with triple domes, constructed at the same place [Page 1010].
East India Gazetteer published in 1828. This Gazetteer mentioned reputed site of temple dedicated to Ram, Sita, Lakshman and Hanuman.
A book Hadith-e-Sehba by Mirza Jaan in year of 1856 also mentioned birth place of Lord Ram which was adjacent to Sita-ki-Rasoi which subsequently called as the Masjid.
Faith and belief of Hindus regarding Janma Asthan of Lord Ram during the period 1858 to 1949:
During this period all official report issued by British Govt, "the Masjid was always referred to as "mosque Janm Sthan".
Historical Sketch by Tehsil Fyzabad published by Govt in 1870 wherein he stated that "Ayodhya is to Hindu what Macca is to the Mohammedan and Jerusalem to the jews".
Babri Masjid as Janam Sthan Masjid: This fact in various applications indicate that mosque was situated at the Janmasthan of Lord Ram. The above documentary evidence are testimonial of faith and belief of Hindu that the mosque was on the Janmasthan of Lord Ram.
After taking into account all evidences, the Hon'ble SC gave its closing remark as follows:
It is thus concluded on the conclusion that faith and belief of Hindus since prior to construction of Mosque and subsequent thereto has always been that Janmasthan of Lord Ram is the place where Babri Mosque has been constructed which faith and belief is proved by documentary and oral evidence discussed above.
CONCLUSION ON TITLE
This part I have also read in newspaper just like most of you did but without discussing it here, this summary is incomplete. So, let's see the rights decided of the parties in this historic battles.
The Hon'ble SC did not decide this dispute over immovable property on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of settled principles of evidence and accordingly the SC directed that:
1. The Central Government shall formulate a scheme to set up a trust and shall make necessary provisions to construct a temple amongst the other things. Possession of inner and outer courtyards shall be handed to the trustees of the trust so constituted.
[Division of the disputed site into inner courtyard and outer courtyard were done by the British Government to maintain peace between Hindus and Muslim. Inner courtyard was for Muslim and outer courtyard was for Hindu]
2. A suitable plot of land admeasuring 5 acres shall be handed over to the Sunni Central Waqf Board [plaintiff of Suit No.4]. This directions were issued in the pursuance of Article 142 of the Constitution.
[Article 142 of the Constitution gives power to the SC that this court may pass such decree or make such order to provide the complete justice. This is necessary to mention here because allotment of land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board was just to do complete justice else they were not able to prove any point in their favour.]
3. An appropriate role must be given to Nirmohi Akhara in management of temple because of historical presence of Nirmohi Akhara otherwise they were also not able to prove their "Shabiat rights" before the SC. This directions were issued in the pursuance of Article 142 of the Constitution.
[Shabiat rights are rights over management and control over temple]
By determining the limits, the hon'ble SC as the final arbiter preserved the sense of balance and send a message that the beliefs of one citizen should not interfere with or dominate over the freedoms and beliefs of others.
In the matter of faith & belief, the absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence.
I hope you enjoy this trimmed version of Ayodhya Judgement.
Very nice explained. Well written rohit
ReplyDelete