Ayodhya dispute: SC brings title suit back to base

Well-intentioned, but impractical. That was the general verdict in the legal fraternity on the Allahabad high court’s ruling on the disputed 2.77-acre piece of land in Ayodhya on 30 September 2010. The initial euphoria in some circles - barring the Muslim groups - over the grand solution buried the inconsistencies in the verdict. The court offered a patch-up formula, not a legal solution to the vexatious issue. The three-way division of the land among Nirmohi Akhara, Sunni Central Wakf Board and Ram Lalla (the idol put up in the makeshift temple after the demolition) was difficult to implement. It required a great deal of adjustment from all the parties involved. With so much of emotional investment in the issue from both sides – Hindus and the Muslims – that critical mass of goodwill was never going to be easy to attain. [caption id=“attachment_6599” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“Supreme Court ordered status quo on the Allahabad high court verdict on the Babri Masjid title suit. B Mathur/Reuters”]  [/caption] Moreover, none of the parties had sought a division of the land. If the court was looking at a out-of-the-box solution, it was not called for. The three-member bench’s verdict also faltered on basic legal parameters while judging the case. It appeared to be relying more on hearsay and unsubstantiated accounts than reliable historical evidence. It was not surprising that all the parties involved moved the apex court. The Wakf Board and Jamait Ulama-i-Hind sought the quashing of the high court’s ruling since it was based on faith and not on evidence. The Hindu Mahasabha appealed to the court to endorse the minority verdict of Justice Dharam Veer Sharma which favoured handing over the entire plot to Hindus. The Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday was thus expected. “A new dimension was given by the high court as the decree of partition was not sought by the parties. It was not prayed by anyone. It has to be stayed. Its a strange order,” the bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice RS Lodha observed. It also barred all religious activity on the 67-acre land acquired by the central government adjacent to the disputed structure. The Supreme Court’s verdict brings the 61-year-old case back to where it began. The last word on the dispute is still a long way off. The unintended spin-off of the court’s ruling could be a pleasant one. Most of the parties would prefer the emotive issue to be settled in the court. In any case, a definitive verdict is not going to be acceptable to either of the communities. The lingering court case keeps any flare-up in abeyance.