“Mosque Demolition an Egregious Violation” – What are the wrongs and remedies available for such violation?

Kosha Doshi | Symbiosis Law School, Pune | 12th March 2020

M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, November 9, 2019

Background-

Ayodhya is a place in the central part of Uttar Pradesh and is believed to be the birth place of the deity Rama by the Hindus. The area is also a location for the famous Mosque Babri Masjid. The dispute being whether the Mosque was built after demolition of the Hindu temple and whether the structure built was laid on the remains of a Hindu temple. 

In 1986s the VJP started a movement reclaiming the Mosque site for the Hindus. This movement gained momentum when the leader LK Advani of BJP started the ‘rath yatra’. An attack took place initiated by the Hindu members of the yatra but a vain attempt as it was abated by the Uttar Pradesh police. Later, on 6^th December, 1992 a ceremony including speeches took place surrounding the premises of the Mosque. This caused the people to get incited and out of spite they attacked the Mosque. The Uttar Pradesh police and forces could not control the public as they were outnumbered. The antagonist attack on such a large scale caused the demolition of the Mosque bringing about turbulent riots across India.

Current Issue-

The judgment for the disputed land was recently passed on 9^th November, 2019. Although the court overruled the previous judgment and handed over the land to a trust for reconstruction of a Hindu temple, it held the demolition of the Masjid an egregious violation. Muslims entitlement over a religious structure was deprived to them by the demolition of the Mosque. The deprivation led to a legal injury and violation of legal right causing a wrong which needed to be undone.

On 14^th August, 1989 the Allahabad High Court passed an order of status quo which was upheld by the higher court. The order passed by the judge prevented any parties involved in the dispute to take any action until the matter can be resolved. But there occurred a breach of order of status quo when the demolition took place. The five bench judgment comprising the Chief Justice of India, Rajan Gogoi; Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer held the obliteration of Mosque as a serious violation of the rule of law. 

Question of Law-

Not just the demolition of the Mosque but the very fact that they offered Namaz every Friday till 16^th December, 1949 even after the annihilation, kindled the judges to provide restitution. The idols implanted by the Hindus on 22/23 December, 1949 in the Mosque led to a sacrilegious treatment. The belief and faith of a worshipper offering prayers cannot be challenged as the Muslims did not forsake the practice of offering Namaz even with the desecration of the Mosque. 

The principles equality of religious beliefs along with the Constitutional values of India made the judges impart justice to the Muslim community. It was held by the court that 5 acres of alternate land within Ayodhya would be allocated to the Sunni Central Waaf Board by the Central Government of the acquired land or the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The remedy provided for the unlawful destruction was the allocation of alternate land under the power of Article 124 of the Indian constitution given to the Supreme Court. 

            To ensure that the wrong committed is provided with a remedy and justice imparted the Supreme Court under Article 124 provides for the 5 acres of land along with liberty to take necessary steps for the construction of a Mosque. The remedy was provided also as a violation of the order of status quo passed by the Allahabad High Court. The nature of relief provided is upholding the principles of tolerance and mutual coexistence of religions. Under article 142, the Supreme Court passed an order to do complete justice keeping in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience. 

Conclusion–

            A 134-year-old dispute recently received its verdict with a 1045-page judgment. The judgment is not to seen as a victory for any particular community but as wrong was being done and remedies being provided for the same. The right for remedies is based on the fundamental principle of reparation for victims with violation of legal rights. The demolition of Babri Masjid was a serious violation not only hurting religious sentiments but also taking away the right of Muslims they have regarding an Islamic structure. The Hindu community received the disputed land to build a temple as the proof was provided of Lord Rama’s birth on that land. Both the communities were provided an even- handed decision by the landmark judgment restoring the faith of people in the law.