Title suits

5.1 - Soon after the installation of idols in the disputed structure the premises were attached in December 1949 under section 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a receiver was appointed. Shortly there after two civil suits were filed in 1930 by Gopal Singh Visharad and Paramhans Ramchandra secking an injunction from the Court restraining the defendants. Which included State Government and certain local Muslims, from removing the idols or otherwise interfering with the worship. A third civil suit was filed in 1959 on behalf of an organisation called Nirmohi Akhara claiming to be the manager of the disputed shrine and seeking its restoration. In 1961, a suit was filed by Sunni Central Wakf Board of U.P. seeking removal of the idols and restoration of the premises as a mosque, these four civil suits were consolidated by the Civil Judge. Faizabad, and subsequently transferred to a Special Bench of the Allahabad High Court at Lucknow on a petition moved by the State Government in the Allahabad High Court. A fifth suit filed in 1989 at Faizabad on behalf of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajmaan by D.N. Agarwal acting as the next friend was also transferred to the Special Bench. The suit filed in 1950 by Paramhans Ramchandra was withdrawa subsequently. The remaining four suits were being heard together by the Special Bench at Lucknow.

5.2 - In the original suits filed in 1950, interim injunction orders were passed by the Civil Judge to allow puja and not to remove the idols. This order was confirmed on 3rd March, 1951. An appeal against this order was rejected by the High Court on 26th April, 1955. Thus, under this order, workship of the idols had been continuing from 1949 to 6th December, 1992. Muslim prayers were not offered in any part of the disputed shrine during this period.

5.3 - The Hindu plaintiffs in the civil suits had taken the plea, among others, that the disputed structure itself was a temple. Nirmohi Akhara in particular took the plea that it had been a temple since time immemorial. Other Hindu litigants also pleaded that the structure had become a temple by adverse possession. This was one of the important issues before the Court. It was also contended that the suit against Deities was barred, as they had not been impleaded as parties in these suits.

5.4 - The Government of U.P. had been impleaded as a Party in the suits filed in 1950. The Government at that time had filed written statements in which it was stated that the disputed structure was a mosque and Muslims had been offering prayers therein till the idols were placed. The BJP Government of Uttar Pradesh filed an application on 24 September, 1992 seeking leave to make certain changes in the written statement which had been filed in 1950 on behalf of the State Government. The main changes sought to be made were : the Hindus do not admit that the disputed structure is a mosque and they claim it to be the birth place of Shri Ram and a place of workship of Hindus; the idols in the disputed structure are being worshipped by the Hindus; the said belief of Hindus is a matter of faith and it does not give rise to any justiciable issue; the Hindus supported by certain historians assert that there was a temple at the site which was pulled down for the construction of the mosque; the structure does not have minarets and a tank for “Vazoo” and the Hindus do not admit it as a mosque, etc. No final order could be passed on U.P. Government’s application.

Proceedings relating to land acquisition

5.5 - The Government of (Uttar Pradesh acquired) 2.77 acres of land in the RJB -BM complex in October, 1991 The purpose of tee acquisition as given in the notification was development of tourism and providing amenities to the pilgrims. In the High Court, the Government of Uttar Pradesh filed a counter-affidavit on 21 October 1991 which, inter alia states as follows:

“The land has been acquired for the development of tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims at Ayodhya in District Faizabad." (Apprendix XII)

5.6 - In October 1991, the High Court passed the following interim order: -

(a) The State may take possession of the notified land and may make arrangements for the purpose notified in the Notifications but no structure of permanent nature shall be put up thereon although structure of temporary nature may be put up;

(b) the taking over of possession shall be subject to further orders of the Court; and .

(c) the acquired land shall not be transferred or alienated.” .

5.7 - Ina counter-affidavit filed on 3 January 1992, the State Government stated that"............. a part of the land of Shri Ram Janma Bhoomi will be left vacant for the renovation and reconstruction of the Temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman there and its appurtenant facilities and conveniences through agencies decided upon by the State Government.” ‘

5.8 - In another counter-affidavit filed on 1 April 1992, the State Government reiterated that purpose of acquisition was specified in the declaration by the Government, ie., development of tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims at Ayodhya, However, the State Government also added as follows : .

“The allegation of malafide intentions is denied. In fact the foremost thing to be done for achieving the object of developing tourism and providing amenities to pilgrims at Ayodhya is the renovation and reconstruction of the temple of Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman at Sri Ram Janma Bhoomi, and the development of adjacent areas as Ram Katha Park. The first essential step to be taken in that direction is the clearance of the site of Sri Rama Janma Bhoom: of several structures and encroachments thereon. The next step is the development of Sri Rama Janma Bhoomi Sthal by the Government and in doing so the area of Sri Ram Janma Bhoomi and some more land adjacent thereto would have to be kept in reserve for the renovation and reconstruction of the temple of Bhagwan Sri Rama Virajman there, and its appurtenances. All this development work is to be completed, according to the decision of the government from public funds in accordance with plans approved by the Government.”.

However, when the construction of the platform started on the acquired land and the matter was raised before the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings, State Government took the stand that this construction was neither approved by the State Government nor any help given for it by the State Government.

5.9 - It is worth noting that in its order of 11 December 1992 the Allahabad High Court held the action of the U.P. Government in the land acquisition matter to be mala fide, and struck down the acquisition.

Construction of the platform by kar sevaks in July 1992

5.10 - “On 15 July 1992, the High Court passed an order stating that: “In the meantime, the opposite parties are restrained from undertaking or continuing any construction activity on the land in question. If it becomes necessary for the opposite parties to undertake any such activity, they will seek prior permission from the Court”.

5.11 - In the petition, a prayer was made to the Supreme Court for restraining the construction work. However, the Supreme Court observed on 23 July 1992.

“So far as the question of imposing a restraint on the continuation of the work is concerned. There are already earlier orders of this Court as wells of the High Court at Allahabad. Which interdict any constructions what we are examining in these proceedings is the very complaint that those earlier order. have been flouted and disobeyed by the respondents. As there are already canting express orders of the Courts interdicting further construction there is in these proceedings concerned with consideration of the question of consequence of their disobedience, no paint in adding to the series of orders already passed, except to say that the orders already made, have that effect’.

5.52 - In its affidavit dated 29 July 1992 before the Supreme Court. the Government of Uttar Pradesh stated that the platform was being used for seating of pilgrims during religious discourses at ceremonies. However, certain photographs filed by the petitioners before the Supreme Court show that the pilgrims were seated in the Shamiyanas erected on the acquired land at a distance from the platform. Also letters written by DM and SP. Faizahad to the Chief Secretary indicate that the construction activity was stopped on 26 July 1992 implying that construction activity had been going on prior to that date. Therefore, it is not clear how the platform could have been used for seating pilgrims during religious discourses or ceremonies when the construction activity was in progress along with the use of so much equipment and machinery.

Assurances of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh to NIC and the Court

5.13 It has been mentioned above that the Chief Minister, U.P. gave the following assurance to NIC on 2nd November, 1991:

(i) All efforts will be made to find an amicable solution of the issue:

(ii) Pending a final solution, the Government of Uttar Pradesh will hold itself fully responsible
for the protection of the Ram Janma Bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure;

(iii) Order of the Court in regard to the land acquisition proceedings will-be fully implemented:
and

(iv) Judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the cases pending before it will not be violated.

5.14 - The State Government agreed that these assurances may be taken as representations before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court accepted these assurances and incorporated these in its order dated 15th November, 1991 as the following extract would show :

“We shall take it and Mr Jaitley (Counsel for Government of Uttar Pradesh) has no objection to our doing so, that the State of Uttar Pradesh remains bound by what has been stated in this paragraph and this shall be the obligation of the State of Uttar Pradesh to stand by our orders of today which is made after taking into account the stand of the State of Uttar Pradesh as disclosed by the Chief Minister and reiterated in the affidavits of the Home Secretary. It shall, therefore, be taken as a representation to the court on which we have made this order.”

5.15 - The Government of Uttar Pradesh had, thus, given clear-cut assurances to the NIC with regard to protection of the disputed structure and implementation of the court orders which stood translated into orders of the Court. In July 1992, however, it expressed its helplessness to stop the construction activity which was continuing on the acquired land. On 6th December, it also failed to ensure even the safety of the disputed structure.

Contempt Proceedings

5.16 - Reference has been made above to the orders of the Supreme Court and High Court interdicting construction activity on the acquired land, When large scale digging, levelling of land and demolition work was done on the land acquired by the Government of Uttar Pradesh in early 1992, contempt petitions were filed against the Stats Government and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in the Supreme Court fresh applications were moved in these petitions in view of the construction of a concrete platform which ware starter on 9 July, 1992.

Assurance to the Supreme Court on the Symbolic Nature of Kar Seva

5.17 - An application was moved before the Supreme Court of India on 2nd November, 1992 in one of the pending contempt petitions expressing apprehensions in view of the announcement of kar seva from 6th December, 1992 and seeking directions to pass ‘a very strenuous order’ restraining the respondents and other functionaries of VHP, BJP and other organisations and the so-called kar sevaks, saints, sadhus, etc. from committing further contempt by restarting the construction. The application also sought directions to the Central Government to take possession of the site as receiver or otherwise use para-military, military forces 10 contain a very serious situation.

5.18 - In its submissions to the court on this application the State Government said that it did not favour immediate coercive action as there were ‘ongoing parleys amongst the various groups for settlement’. On consideration of this stand, the Court directed Attorney General to be present in the Court on 23rd November, 1992 to indicate the Union Government's stand in the matter. The Government of India in its submissions to the Court indicated that it was prepared to abide by and implement in any direction which the Court might give and that it was also prepared to assist the State Government in any way that the State Government wanted if it felt that its own resources were not adequate. During the subsequent proceedings of the Supreme Court the Government of India kept the Court fully informed of the latest developments regarding RJB-BM issue covering matters such as preparation for the kar seva, speeches of the leaders relating to the kar seva, deficiency in security arrangements etc.

5.19 - The Government of Uttar Pradesh took the stand that it was negotiating with various parties. Its affidavit dated 27th November, 1992, inter alia stated the following:

“The process of negotiation with various parties has been initiated by the State Government. The response has been positive..... The State Government is now confident that as long as the Writ Petitions regarding acquisition are pending and the interim orders of the High Court are in force, no construction, permanent or temporary, will take place though to allay the religious aspirations of the Ram Bhakts, kar seva other than by way of construction, as stated, may take place.”

This stand of the State Government that there should be no violation of the Court orders while performing kar seva was supported by Swami Chinmayanand, BJP-MP and functionary of VHP in a letter annexed to the affidavit of the State Government. A similar assurance was given the next day i.e., 28th of November by Smt. Vijaya Raje Scindia. The State Government also gave the undertaking to the Court that “It will ensure that no construction machinery or construction material will move into the acquired land and no construction activity will take place or carried out as long as the interim order of High Court is in force in the writ petition pending before it relating to the land acquisition”.

5.20 - In-its order dated 28th November, 1992 the Supreme Court took note of the above undertaking and the further assurance of the State Government that ‘in the name of ‘kar seva’ no constructional activity, either temporary or permanent, would take place or be allowed to take place on the acquired land” and that “the kar seva would be a symbolic occasion for carrying on ceria religious activities to assuage the feelings of the devotees and will not be exploited for any constructional activity, symbolic or otherwise”. The Court further noted that “the State Government has come forward with an emphatic assurance and undertaking that the orders of the High Court will be obeyed and implemented and that no constructional activity will be carried on or permitted to be carried on by whatsoever agency on the acquired land”.

5.21 - Following further submissions by the Central Government and the petitioners, the Court passed a further order on 1 December, 1992 observing that “due publicity be given to the fact that the proposed kar seva from 6 December, 1992 would not involve any construction activity or moving of any building material. Such publicity might inform all those concerned about the limitations of the purposes of gathering. If any, at the place”. The Court directed “both the Central Government and the State Government to issue appropriate publicity through such media as might seem appropriate including the Doordarshan and the All India Radio. This shall be done immediately”.

5.22 - In accordance with the directions of the Court, the Central Government gave wide publicity to the assurances given by the State Government and the fact that during the kar seva thare could be no construction activity. While the State Government continued to give the above assurances, the events of 6 December, 1992 completely exposed the real intentions of the State Government. Kar sewaks were allowed to assemble in huge numbers in the immediate vicinity of the disputed structure, proper security arrangements were not made and the State Government failed to live up to its promise to protect the disputed structure. The Supreme Court heard the matter again on 6 December, 1992. In its order passed on that day, the Supreme Court observed that “a grave situation has emerged by the developments that have occurred owing to the violations of the undertakings and assurances given by the State Government to the Court. It is a great pity that a constitutionally elected Government could not discharge its duties in a matter of this sensitiveness and magnitude”.