04/01/2024
Judgement of Justice SU Khan in the Ram Janambhoomi
court case.
Epilogue my judgment is short, very short. Either I may be admired as an artist who knows where to stop, particularly in such a sensitive, delicate matter or I may be castigated for being so casual in such a momentous task. Sometimes patience is intense action, silence is speech and pauses are punches.
I have not delved too deeply into history and archaeology. This I have done for four reasons. Firstly this exercise was not absolutely essential to deciding these suits. Secondly, I was not sure as to whether at the end of the tortuous voyage, I would have found a treasure or faced a monster (treasure of truth or monster of confusion worst confounded). Thirdly having no pretence of knowledge of history I did not want to be caught in the crossfire of historians. Fourthly, the Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India, "As far as a title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room for historical facts and claims. Reliance on borderline historical facts will lead to erroneous conclusions."
As this judgment is not finally deciding the matter and as the most crucial stage is to come after it hence I remind both the warring factions of the following. The one quality which epitomized the character of Ram is tyag (sacrifice).
When Prophet Mohammad entered into a treaty with the rival group at Hudayliyah, it appeared to be an abject surrender even to his staunch supporters. However, the Quran described that as a clear victory and it did prove so. Within a short span therefrom Muslims entered Mecca as victors, and not a drop of blood was shed.
Under the sub-heading of demolition, I have admired our resilience. However, we must realize that such things do not happen in quick succession. Another fall and we may not be able to rise again, at least quickly. Today the pace of the world is faster than it was in 1992. We may be crushed.
I quote two verses of Iqbal which were also quoted by Justice R.S. Dhawan in AC Datt vs Rajiv Gandhi AIR 1990 Allahabad
“Vatan ki Fiqr kar Naadan, Musibat aane wali hai,
Teri Barbadiyon k Mashvare Aasmano me.
Na Samjhoge to Mit Jaoge aey Hindustan walon,
Tumhari Daastan tak na hogi Dastano Me.
An observation of Darwin is also worth quoting at this juncture (what authority to quote in a religious matter/ dispute!):
"Only those species survived which collaborated and improvised."
Muslims must also ponder that at present the entire world wants to know the exact teachings of Islam with respect of relationship of Muslims with others. Hostility - peace - friendship - tolerance - opportunity to impress others with the Message - opportunity to strike wherever and whenever possible - or what? In this regard, Muslims in India enjoy a unique position. They have been rulers here, they have been ruled and now they are sharers in power (of course junior partners). They are not in the majority but they are also not a negligible minority (The maximum number of Muslims in any country after Indonesia is in India.) In other countries either the Muslims are in huge majority which makes them indifferent to the problem in question or in negligible minority which makes them redundant. Indian Muslims have also inherited a huge legacy of religious learning and knowledge. They are therefore in the best position to tell the world the correct position. Let them start with their role in the resolution of the conflict at hand.
Justice S U Khan said, Before parting I thank Chief Justice C.K. Prasad (now a Judge of the Supreme Court) for giving me the responsibility and providing opportunity to me to decide this historical case by inducting me in this Bench. We are also thankful to Chief Justice H.L. Ghokhale (now a Judge of the Supreme Court) for inducting Justice Sudhir Agarwal, in this Bench who is extremely laborious, very upright, and considerably balanced.
GIST OF THE FINDINGS in Justice S U Khan’s judgment
1. The disputed structure was constructed as a Mosque by or under orders of Babar.
2. It is not proved by direct evidence that the premises in dispute including the constructed portion belonged to Babar or the person who constructed the mosque or under whose orders it was constructed.
3. No temple was demolished for constructing the mosque.
4. The mosque was constructed over the ruins of temples which were lying in utter ruins for a very long time before the construction of the Mosque and some material thereof was used in the construction of the mosque.
5. That for a very long time till the construction of the Mosque it was treated/believed by Hindus that somewhere in a very large area of which premises in dispute is a very small part birthplace of Lord Ram was situated, however, the belief did not relate to any specified small area within that bigger area specifically the premises in dispute.
6. That after some time of construction of the mosque Hindus started identifying the premises in dispute as the exact birth place of Lord Ram or a place wherein the exact birth place was situated.
7. That much before 1855 Ram Chabutra and Seeta Rasoi had come into existence and Hindus were worshipping in the same. It was a very very unique and absolutely unprecedented situation that inside the boundary wall and compound of the mosque Hindu religious places were there which were actually being worshipped along with offerings of Namaz by Muslims in the mosque.
8. That in view of the above gist of the finding both the parties Muslims as well as Hindus are held to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
9. That even though for the sake of convenience both the parties i.e. Muslims and Hindus were using and occupying different portions of the premises in dispute still it did not amount to formal partition and both continued to be in joint possession of the entire premises in dispute.
10. That both the parties have failed to prove the commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.
11. That for some decades before 1949 Hindus started treating/believing the place beneath the Central dome of the Mosque (where at present make shift temple stands) to be the exact birthplace of Lord Ram.
12. That idol was placed for the first time beneath the Central dome of the mosque in the early hours of December 23, 1949.
11. That in view of the above both the parties are declared to be joint title holders in possession of the entire premises in dispute and a preliminary decree to that effect is passed with the condition that at the time of actual partition by meets and bounds at the stage of preparation of final decree the portion beneath the Central dome where at present make sift temple stands will be allotted to the share of the Hindus.
