Published on: 16th November 2025
Authored by: Jiya Sarkar
SISTER NIVEDITA UNIVERSITY, NEWTOWN, WEST BENGAL
Equivalent Citation: 2020-1 SCC 1
Date of Judgement: November 9, 2019
Case Number: 10866-10867 of 2010
Petitioner: M Siddiq (deceased)
Respondent: Mahant Suresh Das & Ors.
ABSTRACT
The Supreme Court of India’s judgment in 2019 finally resolving a Hindu-Muslim dispute about the location of Lord Ram’s birthplace at Ayodhya is considered an important judgment in Indian constitutional history. The Court unanimously gave the disputed site at Ayodhya to Hindus and directed the establishment of a trust to be set up to build a Ram temple. The Court also allocated an alternative land for the Sunni Waqf Board to be able to build their mosque.
This case comment evaluates the way in which the Supreme Court addressed evidence, how the Court dealt with the intersection of faith and law, and what the implications for secularism and minority rights might be. By carefully examining the facts and issues of the dispute, the contentions made, the rationale adopted, any defects in the judgment, the as well as the broader implications of the judgment, this comment aims to place this important judgment into context of the ongoing development of Indian constitutional jurisprudence.
Keywords: Ayodhya dispute, religious property law, secularism
INTRODUCTION
Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. [1]—now more popularly known as the Ayodhya or Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute—was arguably one of the most historic (and sensitive) legal disputes in independent India. The dispute itself spanned more than one century—the culmination of religious sentiments of Hindus and Muslims battling over a 2.77-acre land site of Ayodhya, which Hindus recognized as the birthplace of Lord Ram and Muslims recognized as the site of the Babri Masjid.[2]The Supreme Court’s 2019 verdict attempted to resolve a dispute supported by centuries of historical obsession while balancing a multitude of faith, historical fact, and constitutional principles. This case comment examines the reasoning of the Court, its reliance on archaeological and historical fact, and the potential consequences for Indian secularism.
FACTS
The roots of the dispute date back to 1528 when Mir Baqi constructed the Babri Masjid allegedly after demolishing a Hindu temple that reported to mark Lord Ram’s birthplace.[3]The dispute escalated in 1949 when idols of Ram Lalla were secretly placed inside the mosque, which led to the closure of the mosque and development of the site as disputed property.[4]The matter escalated again in 1992 when a large group, demolished the mosque, which instigated riots across the country and more litigation.[5]A plurality of civil suits were proceeding forward, including one in the Allahabad High Court, which issued a decision in 2010 determining that the land should be divided among the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, and Ram Lalla.[6] Appeals were filed and eventually made their way to the Supreme Court, which provided its decision in 2019.[7]
ISSUES RAISED
The Supreme Court noted the main issues to be determined as follows:
- Whether the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and whether the Hindus held exclusive possession?
- Whether the Babri Masjid was constructed on a pre-existing Hindu religious structure?
- Whether the Allahabad High Court three-way division warranted legal support?
- Whether the placing of idols in 1949 and the demolition in 1992 had any effect on the parties’ rights?
- Whether providing alternative land to the Sunni Waqf Board was a just and equitable remedy?
CONTENTION
- Hindu Parties:
The Hindu parties, including Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara, professed their belief with great conviction that the disputed site was not simply land, but rather the Boxing Day of Lord Ram – an important sacred site that Hindus have revered and religiously worshipped for ages. For centuries Hindus have prayed and offered rituals at this site, two things that have reaffirmed centuries of continuity and faith in the sacredness of this site. The Hindu parties based their claim, among other things, on evidence presented by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which included statements showing that the non-Islamic structure existed below the Babri Masjid, which they reasoned meant that the mosque was constructed after demolition of a Hindu temple. Their evidence further represented their historical relationship to the land, the temple and the mosque[8].
- Muslim Parties:
The Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim litigants argued they had statutory ownership of the site, uninterrupted possession and worship until the year 1949, and then argued the ASI reports were inconclusive and that the act of worshipping the idols and their subsequent removal from the mosque were illegal. The Muslim parties sought the restoration of the mosque and exclusive right to the disputed land[9].
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment determined the whole of the disputed land belonged to the deity Ram Lalla and accepted that Ram Janmbhoomi is of religious significance to worshippers of Hinduism[10]. The Supreme Court noted that even though the ASI report proved there was a structure built prior to Islam and not of Islamic origin, it did not prove that there was a temple before the mosque or the mosque was used as a temple[11]. As much as Supreme Court condemned the illegal act of installing idols of deities in 1949, and the illegal demolition by Hindu nationalist organizations in 1992, it correctly observed that these acts did not extinguish the Hindu parties’ top claim to ownership of the outer courtyard, which had existed and carried the better claim, and had been worshiping and retaining worship continuously[12]. After finding there was no way of sustaining Allahabad High Court’s three-way division decision, the Supreme Court made the central government to form a trust to construct a Ram Temple on disputed territory. The Supreme Court, corolla to forming the trust, made an additional order to provide for five acres as alternative land to the Sunni Waqf Board, to construct a mosque[13].
DEFECTS OF LAW
- Privileging Faith While Ignoring Evidence: The judgment has been criticized for privileging faith and historical beliefs over the law and evidentiary standards[14]. Although the Court did recognize that the mosque was demolished illegally, it did not provide adequate restitution to the Muslim community raising issues around whether the remedy was indeed adequate[15].
- Confusing Juristic Personhood: It is also difficult to understand what it means for the deity and the land to have the status of juristic persons and this may complicate future religious property disputes.
- Biased Use of Archaeological Evidence: Although the Court’s dramatic weight given to the ASI report made the report helpful in establishing historical facts, its use was seen as biased, and some recognized scholars have argued that the ASI report privileged the claims of Hindus despite being inconclusive about whether the temple existed at all and whether it was demolished[16].
- Secularism Versus Rights for Minorities: There are serious accusations about how the verdict read the relationship between majoritarian beliefs and the rights of minorities, critics have argued the judgment threatens to overturn the secular character of the Indian Constitution[17].
IMPACT OF JUDGEMENT
- Establishment of legal Precedent: The SC recognizing Ram Lalla as a juristic person capable of holding property created major jurisprudence for religious endowment cases in India. This doctrine may create precedential value in future disputes over the legal character and property rights of deities and institutions of religions[18].
- Accommodating Competing Religious Rights: The Supreme Court had given the disputed land to build a Ram temple and ordered the government to provide alternative land for a mosque as a rightful way to promote reconciliation and healing between Hindu and Muslim communities. The SC’s actions in that sense were beneficially pragmatic and substantive as they sought to create communal harmony in a matter that had existed with extremely sensitive timelines for decades[19].
- Discussion of Faith v. Evidence: In exercise its favour for Ram Lalla’s claim for property rights, there seems to be a discussion emerging in the legal and academia spaces relating to the reliance on both Faith long held belief in conjunction with historically and archaeologically based evidence in the decision of restoring Ram Lalla’s rights. Concern was raised that this duality of evidence whereby faith can be deemed appropriate, could arguably contradict the secular character of the judiciary in its role to adjudicate like matters on future occasions[20].
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid controversy represents a historic effort to settle a long-running area of conflict legally. The ruling is surrounded by comments about the restoration of public order and about achieving a practical resolution to a long-running conflict. But some criticisms of the ruling have also emerged regarding its reliance on religion and its consequences for secularism and minority protection in India. However, the case also exemplifies the paradox of courts adjudicating faith in the context of a plural society and the peril in avoiding clarity and legislative direction to prevent similar situations from arising and developing into demands. In sum, the ruling is an evolution of Indian constitutional law indicating both the promise and limits of court engagement in the domain of religion and identity.
[1] M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 1.
[2] Id. at 1.
[3] Id. at 25.
[4] Id. at 30.
[5] Id. at 31.
[6] Id. at 32.
[7] Id. at 33.
[8] Id. at 70.
[9] Id. at 75.
[10] Id. at 80.
[11] Id. at 85.
[12] Id. at 90.
[13] Id. at 95.
[14] Faizan Mustafa, Ayodhya Verdict: Faith over Law? Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. 54, No. 46 (2019).
[15] M. Siddiq, (2019) 18 SCC 1 at 998.
[16] Suhrith Parthasarathy, The Supreme Court’s Ayodhya Judgment: A Critique, The Hindu (Nov. 10, 2019).
[17] M. Siddiq, (2019) 18 SCC 1 at 1010.
[18] M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., (2019) 18 SCC 1, at 82–85.
[19] Id. at 95.
[20] Ratna Kapur, The ‘Ayodhya’ Case: Hindu Majoritarianism and the Right to Religious Liberty, 29 Md. J. Int’l L. 1, 25–30 (2014).
