If this trend continues unchecked, it could embolden certain groups with Hindutva ideologies to pursue claims over thousands of mosques through legal means, potentially leading to further polarization and tensions in society.
By Syed Zubair Ahmad
The trend of courts consistently rejecting pleas from Muslim parties and favoring Hindu litigants in Masjid-Mandir disputes is indeed alarming and reminiscent of the one-sided outcome in the Babri Masjid case. This pattern raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of judicial decisions in such contentious matters.
If this trend continues unchecked, it could embolden certain groups with Hindutva ideologies to pursue claims over thousands of mosques through legal means, potentially leading to further polarization and tensions in society. The lack of relief for the Muslim party throughout the Babri Masjid case, culminating in the court’s decision to allow the construction of a Ram Mandir on the site of a centuries-old mosque, underscores the imbalance in judicial outcomes and the challenges faced by minority communities in seeking justice.
Examining the decisions of the courts that have consistently favored Hindu litigants in Masjid-Mandir disputes provides insight into the legal landscape and the complexities surrounding these cases.
- December 22, 1949: District Magistrate K.K. Nayar refuses to remove idols of Ram placed inside the mosque by Hindu Mahasabha members, citing the possibility of riots. The mosque is subsequently locked.
- 1950: Muslim and Hindu parties file suits in the Faizabad court, seeking permission for namaz and prayers, respectively. An interim injunction allows a pujari in but restricts entry to others, keeping the inner courtyard locked.
- 1986: District Judge Krishna Mohan Pandey directs the unlocking of Babri Masjid gates, allowing Hindus to worship there.
- 1989: The Allahabad High Court orders the maintenance of status quo regarding the Babri Masjid after a fresh suit is filed by Deoki Nandan Agarwal, who was also the VHP vice-president, seeking to become the “sakha” or friend of the deity and its birthplace in the title suits.
- 2002: The Allahabad High Court directs the Archaeological Survey of India to excavate the Babri Masjid site to determine if a temple lay underneath.
- 2010: The Allahabad High Court rules that the disputed land in Ayodhya, where the Babri Masjid stood, should be divided into three parts. Two-thirds are to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs, and one-third is given to the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board.
- November 9, 2019: The Supreme Court delivers a unanimous verdict in the Ayodhya title dispute case, granting the disputed land to the Hindu parties where the Babri Masjid once stood.
- September 30, 2020: A special CBI court acquits all 23 accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case, including prominent political figures.
This timeline encapsulates key events and legal developments in the Babri Masjid dispute, highlighting the shifting judicial decisions and outcomes over the decades.
Interestingly Krishna Mohan Pandey the Faizabad district judge who ordered the gates of the mosque to be opened, allowing Hindus to worship inside wrote in his autobiography “Voice of Conscience” that he took the decision under the supervision of Hanuman ji who is known as the biggest Ram Bhakt. KM Pandey wrote “On the date of the order when orders for opening locks was passed a Black Monkey was sitting for the whole day on the roof of the Court Room in which hearing was going on, holding the flag-post. Thousands of people from Faizabad and Ayodhya who were present to hear the Court’s final orders offered him groundnuts and various fruits. Strangely, the said Monkey did not touch any of the offerings and left the place when the final order was passed at 4.40 pm. The District Magistrate and SSP escorted me to my bungalow. The said Monkey was present in the verandah of my bungalow. I was surprised to see him. I just saluted him, treating him to be some Divine Power.“
While Pandey’s account may be seen as anecdotal and subjective, it provides insight into the complex interplay of faith and legal decision-making in cases of religious significance. It also highlights the deep-rooted emotions and beliefs that can shape perceptions and actions in contentious issues like the Babri Masjid dispute.
In the latest development, on March 11, the High Court’s Indore bench had ordered the ASI to conduct a scientific survey of the medieval-era Bhojshala Kamal Maula Masjid in the Dhar district. The HC has instructed the ASI to provide an updated report within six weeks after receiving the survey.
Supreme Court on April 1 refused to stay Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) survey in the disputed sites.
In December 2023 , the Allahabad High Court had appointed a commissioner to carry out a survey at the Shahi Idgah mosque in Mathura on the lines of a similar assessment at the Gyanvapi Mosque in Varanasi.
But the order was put on hold by the Supreme Court saying the purpose of appointing the commissioner was “vague”.
Earlier on 31st January a Varanasi district court judge Ajay Krishna Vishwesha directed the district magistrate to make arrangements for pooja to be performed by the Hindu side and a poojari nominated by Shri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Trust.
Interestingly Janurary 31 was the last working day for district judge A. K Vishvesha before retirement. Within one month Vishvesha was appointed ombudsman of the Dr Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University in Lucknow.
It is noteworthy that all five Supreme Court judges who pronounced the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in 2019 are currently benefiting from promotions or post-retirement benefits.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi, who was the then CJI is now a member of Rajya Sabha, Justice S A Bobde, is a Vice Chancellor, justice D Y Chandrachud is CJI, Justice Ashok Bhushan is NCLAT president and justice S Abdul Nazeer is enjoying in governor house.
