The Supreme Court on Monday stayed the Allahabad high court’s judgment in Ayodhya title suit case and questioned the verdict partitioning the 2.77 acres of land on which the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure once stood between Hindus and Muslims when none of the parties had sought division of the property.
Describing as “strange” the devising of a mechanism for a three-way partition of the 2.77 acres of land between the Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu sect, a bench comprising Justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha said the HC had sought to give a “new dimension” to the entire case when there was no prayer by any party for its division.
“Status quo has to be there. Something needs to be done, such types of things cannot remain for long,” the bench said while staying the HC’s two-to-one majority verdict pronounced on September 30, 2010 and admitting a bunch of cross-appeals from both the sides against it.
The bench also recorded in its order that status quo be maintained as per the two verdicts of the Supreme Court given in 1994 and 2003, which cover both, the 2.77 acres of disputed land and the 67 acres acquired by the Centre after the 1992 demolition, to ensure the safety and security of the area from any outside interference.
Since the two orders of the apex court had allowed “puja” and other rituals by Hindus in the “makeshift” Ram temple built by “Sangh Parivar karsevaks” at the disputed site after the 1992 demolition, Monday’s status quo order would apply to it in the same manner.
However, the bench said, “The (HC) judgment has created a fog by giving a decree of partition. It is surprising, none of the parties had prayed for partition. A new dimension has been given by the HC when there was no prayer for partition. It has to be stayed.”
“The (high) court has given a new relief, which was not prayed for. It was quite strange that the court has ordered a partition,” the bench said, questioning the majority order of high court Justices S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agrawal, who decreed the partition, while the third judge, Justice Dharam Veer Sharma, in his minority opinion, had allowed the suit of the Hindus and had ordered that the entire 2.77 acres of land be handed over to them.
During the arguments though counsel representing both sides were “unanimous” that status quo has to be maintained till the apex court decides the case, BJP leader and senior Supreme Court advocate Ravi Shankar Prasad pointed out that the HC has “recognised” the status of Lord Ram as the deity present at the site.
“The status of deity has been recognised, we are agreeing to the status quo so far as the decree (of partition) is concerned,” Mr Prasad said, but added that it has only to be as per the 1994 verdict of the Supreme Court in the Ismail Farooqui case and the March 13, 2003 verdict in the Aslam Bhure case with regard to the disputed 2.77 acres and 67 acres.
Mr Prasad pointed out that even the HC in its latest order had extended its status quo deadline to August 31 in view of the delay in filing of appeals before the apex court. Agreeing that status quo has to be maintained as per the earlier verdicts of the apex court, the bench passed a formal order in this regard while admitting the cross appeals of the parties to the dispute but made it clear that no new party would be allowed to join the issue in the Supreme Court.
“Since there is no dispute with regard to the 67 acres of land, we are not going to disturb the earlier orders. But so far as the disputed (2.77 acres) land is concerned, we will pass status quo order as it existed in January 1993,” the bench said. “But we will not allow sneaking in by any new party,” the bench added, questioning the locus standi of several petitioners who wanted to join the issue in the apex court but were not parties to the title suit before the HC.
Prominent parties representing Hindus include the Nirmohi Akhara, Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha and the deity Bhagwan Ram Virajman. For the Muslims the Jamait Ulema-i-Hind and the Sunni Central Wakf Board of Uttar Pradesh are the main parties before the apex court. There were in all 31 contestants in the title suit before the HC, including some individuals from both communities.