Understanding the Ayodhya Judgment: Legal Principles and Relevant Sections
Updated: Feb 22
The Ayodhya judgment, also known as the Ayodhya dispute case, refers to the legal case involving a dispute over a site in Ayodhya, India, where the Babri Masjid mosque was located before it was demolished in 1992 by Hindu nationalists. The dispute centered around the claim by Hindu groups that the site was the birthplace of Lord Rama and that a temple dedicated to him had existed at the site prior to the construction of the mosque. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of India and a final judgment was delivered in November 2019.
Legal Principles: The judgment relied on several legal principles, including:
Adverse possession: This is a legal doctrine that allows a person who has occupied a property for a certain period of time to claim legal ownership of the property. The Supreme Court held that the Hindu groups had established adverse possession over the disputed site since they had been offering prayers there for a long time.
Archaeological evidence: The Supreme Court relied on the report of the Archaeological Survey of India, which stated that there was evidence of a temple beneath the mosque. The court held that this provided sufficient evidence to establish that the site was the birthplace of Lord Rama and that a temple had existed at the site prior to the construction of the mosque.
Equality before the law: The Supreme Court held that all religious communities were equal before the law and that the law should not discriminate on the basis of religion.
Relevant Sections and Articles: Several sections and articles of Indian law were relevant to the Ayodhya judgment, including:
Article 25 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to freedom of religion.
Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which empowers the district magistrate to prohibit the assembly of more than four people in a public place.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991, which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship and provides for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947.
In the final judgment, the Supreme Court held that the disputed site would be handed over to a trust for the construction of a temple, while a separate five-acre plot of land would be provided to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque. The judgment was based on a variety of legal principles and involved the interpretation and application of several sections and articles of Indian law.
By Siddharth Dalmia
+91-9971799250
dalmiasiddharth1994@gmail.com
