On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court of India [announced](https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-ayodhya-verdict-highlights-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-case-ram-temple-6111215/#:~:text=* SC grants entire 2.77 acre,exclusive possession of inner courtyard.) its verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict, India’s longest-running legal dispute. The final hearing in the case itself spanned over 40 days, making it the second-longest proceeding in the history of the apex court.
A five-judge bench of the court, headed by then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, unanimously ordered the Sunni Waqf Board to set up a trust to construct the Ram temple at the disputed site, spread across 2.77 acres of land. The court also directed the Centre to allot an alternate five-acre plot of land within Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board.
The verdict of the court brought to an end a religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims that started 134 years ago, when the first FIR in the case was filed. The contested site, claimed by Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram, hosted the Babri mosque, which was built by the first Mughal emperor, Babur. Muslims claim they had been offering prayers at the mosque for generations until 1949, when Hindu activists placed idols of Ram inside the mosque. Following this, the government declared the premises a disputed area and locked it up.
The conflict between the two religious groups turned violent on 6 December 1992, when the mosque was demolished by Hindu Kar Sevaks, which led to communal riots across the country, killing at least 2,000 people, mostly Muslims.
Those involved in the demolition of the mosque alleged that it was built by modifying or destroying a Hindu temple that previously stood on the same plot of land. They based their allegation on the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India, which suggested that the site contained the remnants of a 10th-century temple beneath the Babri Mosque.
Following the demolition of the mosque, a case was filed in the Allahabad High Court, which gave its verdict on 30 September 2010. The court ordered that the land be equally divided among the three parties that were fighting for ownership of the site: Ram Lalla, represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. While the three-judge bench was not unanimous that the mosque was constructed after the demolition of a temple, it did agree that a temple or temple-like structure existed below the mosque.
Unhappy with the verdict, the Sunni Waqf Board moved the Supreme Court. In its petition, the Board said that the verdict was based on faith and was not acceptable. The apex court then asked the parties to explore an out-of-court settlement. However, the Babri Masjid Action Committee refused to settle the issue externally, pointing out that political bias may influence the settlement in favour of the other groups that were fighting for the land.
On 20 July 2018, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict on the question of reference to a larger bench. On 23 July, the court received a petition from a resident of Ayodhya, Vineet Kumar Maurya, who appealed to the court to direct the government to declare the disputed land as Ayodhya Buddha Vihara under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958. On 29 October that year, the court postponed the hearing to January 2019, stating that the issue was not a priority for it.
On 8 March 2019, the Supreme Court referred the case for mediation to a three-member panel. But the mediation proceedings failed to come up with an amicable solution. The apex court then formed a five-judge bench to hear the case, the proceedings of which began on 6 August. The hearing concluded on 16 October.
Although the verdict of the apex court has been hailed by a large number of the Hindu population in the country, including the Prime Minister, many Muslims are unhappy. On 17 November, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind announced that they would seek a review of the court’s verdict. The Sunni Waqf Board, however, has distanced itself from the Law Board’s decision and said it would not seek a review.
In 2020, the Waqf Board, announced its plan for construction of a mosque complex which included a mosque, a community kitchen and a hospital on the 5 acre land allotted by the Supreme court. The design was released by Indo Islamic Cultural Foundation(IICF). The ambitious project has not been commenced even after four years. The Masjid Committee cite funding problems and disapproval from the Ayodhya Development Authority as reasons for the delay.
Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Demand to retain/protect access to common land/resources
Other Demand/Contention of the Affected Community
Region Classification
Urban
Type of Land
Common
Non-Forest (Other than Grazing Land)
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Details of sources (names of accused, names and numbers of any lawyers, names of any police officers contacted)
Status of Project
Original Project Deadline
Whether the Project has been Delayed
Significance of Land to Land Owners/Users
Religious/Sacred/Cultural value
Whether the project was stalled due to land conflict
Source/Reference
Total investment involved (in Crores):
₹
Type of investment:
Year of Estimation
Has the Conflict Ended?
Yes
When did it end?
November 2019
Why did the conflict end?
On November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court of India announced its verdict on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict, India’s longest-running legal dispute. The final hearing in the case itself spanned over 40 days, making it the second-longest proceeding in the history of the apex court.
Categories of Legislations Involved in the Conflict
Legislations/Policies Involved
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam libero vitae erat. Aenean faucibus nibh et justo cursus id rutrum lorem imperdiet. Nunc ut sem vitae risus tristique posuere.
Whether claims/objections were made as per procedure in the relevant statute
What was the claim(s)/objection(s) raised by the community?
What was the Decision of the Concerned Government Department?
Legal Processes and Loopholes Enabling the Conflict:
Land record discrepancies
Legal Status:
In Court
Status of Case In Court
Disposed
Whether any adjudicatory body was approached
Name of the adjudicatory body
Name(s) of the Court(s)
Allahabad High Court, Supreme Court
Case Number
No.5 of 1989 (Regular Suit No.236 of 1989),Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010
Main Reasoning/Decision of court
Major Human Rights Violations Related to the Conflict:
Killing
Physical attack
Whether criminal law was used against protestors:
Reported Details of the Violation:
As many as 2,000 people died during the communal riots that occurred across the country following the demolition of the Babri mosque
Date of Violation
December 5, 1992
Location of Violation
Ayodhya
Government Departments Involved in the Conflict:
Uttar Pradesh government
PSUs Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Government Authorities for Comments?
Name, Designation and Comment of the Government Authorities Approached
Corporate Parties Involved in the Conflict:
Did LCW Approach Corporate Parties for Comments?
Communities/Local Organisations in the Conflict:
Islamic Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, Hindu Maha Sabha
What was the action taken by the police?
How many people did the police detain or arrest?
What is the current status of the detained/accused persons?
Did the person face any violence while in police custody?
If any arrests took place, were the accused persons produced before a judge within 24 hours of the arrest?
If the accused was not produced before a magistrate within 24 hours, or not produced at all, what were the reasons?
Legislation under which the accused was charged
Was the accused person informed of their right to legal representation? Did the accused person have access to legal aid?
In cases where the accused person approached the court for bail, was bail granted?
Why was bail granted or rejected? If granted, what were the bail conditions and quantum of bail?
Were there any other notable irregularities that took place, or other significant details?
Violent protest during public hearing for cement plant expansion in Meghalaya's East Jaintia Hills
Residents of Narela's Bajitpur Thakran oppose demolition of temples for defence institute, demand sports complex
Adivasis in Chhattisgarh's Hasdeo protest relentlessly against mining project in forest
Lawyer bodies protest against Assam government’s decision to relocate Gauhati High Court
Demands for Ram Temple, Babri Mosque at same site divides Ayodhya
Supreme Court Allows Land Reclamation for Mumbai Coastal Road Project
Farmers Refuse Land for Pune Outer Ring Road Project in Maharashtra
Slum Dwellers in Gujarat's Surat Stage Protest against Demolition, Forced Eviction