Clickhereto know more on the Babri Masjid controversy
Why in news?
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the Ayodhya dispute.
The appeals were against the Allahabad High Court’s judgment on the title-suits filed by both Hindu and Muslim parties.
What is the case on?
The Ayodhya dispute involving Hindus and Muslims dates back to 1800s.
It relates to differences over rights to worship in Chabutra, an uncovered open platform adjoining the Babri Masjid, in Ayodhya, UP.
The competing claims began with the surreptitious installation of Lord Ram’s idol on the night of December 22/23, 1949 under the Ayodhya structure’s central dome.
Suits were filed over the years by both sides.
From the 1980s, the Ayodhya dispute was used for political mobilisation by Hindu nationalist groups.
After a court ordered the reopening of the structure’s doors in 1986, the Bharatiya Janata Party saw the scope for a national movement in it.
The VHP (Vishva Hindu Parishad) and Bajrang Dal launched a movement for the ‘retrieval’ of the site for the construction of a grand Ram Mandir.
With this, a dispute over title and the right of worship transformed into an uncompromising litigation based on faith.
The disputed structure was demolished in December 1992.
The matter was ultimately disposed of by the Allahabad High Court Bench in 2010.
The decision involved a three-way division of the disputed area among the deity, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Muslim side.
But, this satisfied no one and the matter went up to the Supreme Court.
[Nirmohi Akhara is a religious denomination established by Ramananda. It is one of the litigants in the Ayodhya case.]
What are the challenges to the final judgement?
Notably, the case’s emotive nature and its potential for dividing society prevented its early disposal.
The demolition was certainly a crime against the country’s secular fabric and its constitutional ethos.
The alleged evidence of a Hindu structure beneath the mosque came up only in excavations made after the structure was destroyed.
Certainly, the evidence would not have been available to the court if the suits had been disposed of in earlier decades.
So, any decision made on such evidence might amount to the judicial system legitimising the demolition.
What is the way forward?
Given all, there can be no judicial standards to settle a faith-based argument.
There is some talk of a “settlement” based on mediation efforts at the court’s behest.
A mediated settlement would be welcome, even though it is not clear if all sides are on board.
However, if the outcome is not to be based purely on the rule of law, it would be better to go for a mediated settlement.
