The Supreme Court’s move for day-to-day hearing from August 6 on suits and cross-appeals connected with the Ayodhya land dispute may mark the final denouement of the legal tangle of the Ram temple-Babri masjid issue.
Recently, a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi observed that an attempt at mediation had failed to find an amicable solution.
It noted that it had asked a three-member mediation panel headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla (and comprising Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu) to undertake the exercise. However, their efforts did not bear fruit just as similar exercises had not in the past. In fact, several efforts were made for an out-of-court settlement or mediation in the last two decades, particularly by then prime ministers, including Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh and Chandrasekhar, but they were all in vain.
As the Ram temple is one of the core issues of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the opposition parties were against commencement of a day-to-day hearing before the Lok Sabha polls. They feared that such a hearing would enable the BJP to reap huge political dividend during an election season.
On March 8, the apex court referred the dispute to the mediation panel, asking it to hold in-camera proceedings and complete the process in eight weeks. In May, it gave time till August 15 for the panel to complete mediation, saying the mediators were “optimistic” about an amicable solution. However, as this panel found out, the Hindu bodies (except Nirmohi Akhara) and the Uttar Pradesh government were not in favour of mediation while Muslim bodies supported it.
Finally, the apex court decided to stick with its resolve that it would commence day-to-day hearing on cross-appeals if mediation didn’t lead to an amicable solution to the vexed issue.
A major reason for the contending sides not to agree on mediation is that they strongly hold that they have a much stronger case in respect of claims to the disputed land.
At the heart of the matter is not just ownership of the 2.77 acre, which is the dispute before the apex court. For years the Hindus have believed that Ram was born in Ayodhya at the very spot where a 16th-century masjid stood until it was pulled down by a mob in 1992.
The Muslims have cited records and documents kept since the Mughal era to support their claim for a mosque to be reconstructed at the place to replace the one that was built in 1528 during Mughal emperor Babur’s rule after destroying the temples existing there.
In terms of a legal dispute, it was in 1961 that the Sunni Wakf Board took the matter to court, laying claim over the Babri masjid.
A “magnificent” temple for Ram has been the BJP’s long-held political commitment ever since its patriarch LK Advani undertook a rath-yatra. This was in the run-up to the events of December 1992. Since then, the Ayodhya dispute has been on a political course. However, the core Hindutva supporters have been disappointed that BJP governments led by AB Vajpayee and Narendra Modi have not delivered on their pledge. In fact, the BJP promised its supporters to build a Ram temple at the disputed site for the first time in 1989.
There has been talk of other ways of resolving the problem, even by a legislation, which do not appear feasible. Also, with the decision of the apex court for a day-to-day hearing, it has put an end to such speculation for the while.
Today, the 14 cross-appeals before the Supreme Court relate to challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order of September 30, 2010, dividing the 2.77 acre equally between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhada and the Sunni Wakf Board. The high court took into account the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India about evidence of a temple beneath the debris of the Babri masjid.
A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that is undertake day-to-day hearing consists of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazeer. Since Gogoi is due to retire on November 17, a verdict could be expected before that date.
Regardless of the outcome of the verdict, the Yogi Adityanath government has been working to install a 251-metre-tall statue of Ram at Ayodhya which would be taller than the Statue of Unity in Gujarat. The statue was thought of when the BJP felt that the hearing on the Ayodhya case would be inordinately delayed.
Besides the statue, a Ramayana Circuit, a massive museum and a special airport dedicated to Ram are to be built in Ayodhya.
However, two things will always be anyone’s challenge: implementing the Supreme Court verdict and ensuring there is no big fallout on Hindu-Muslim ties.
Shekhar Iyer is former senior associate editor of Hindustan Times and political editor of Deccan Herald. Views are personal.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
