Photo Gallery
 Articles

Home
Introduction
Ayodhya Facts
FAQ's on Ayodhya
Ayodhya
All Evidences
Books & Reviews
Ayodhya & After
Epic Ramayan
Sita Shakti Kavya
Celebrations
Related Links
Experts' Opinion
MASTER BUILDER
MAKING of TEMPLE
Hinduunity.org
Bajrang Dal
Shiv Sena
Hindu Vivek Kendra

Home | Articles

Legal labyrinth

For the last 50 years, and especially from the mid eighties, the Babri Masjid issue has generated a welter of litigation without getting any closer to a solution. Four of the five title suits relating to the disputed spot, all grouped together and being heard by a special Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, still stand. The fifth, filed by Ramchandra Paramhans, a priest, was withdrawn in early 1990.

On January 16, 1950, three weeks after the "miraculous appearance" of Ram Lalla within the Babri Masjid, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a suit in the Faizabad civil court for an order against removal of the idols. Simultaneously Paramhans demanded that his right to worship the idols within the Babri Masjid be upheld.Though injunctions were passed upholding these rights, the suits were not disposed of.

In 1959 sadhus of the Nirmohi Akhada, which had owned much of the land around the disputed spot, filed a third suit seeking a direction that no one interferes with worship at the Ram temple. Finally in December 1961, the UP Sunni Central Board of Waqfs filed a suit claiming rights to the Babri Masjid and the land around it, which it described as a Sunni graveyard. On July 1, 1989 VHP vice-president Deoki Nandan Agarwal filed a suit on behalf of the deity: it sought a declaration that the area belonged to the deities, and restraint on all those seeking to prevent the construction of a Ram mandir at the site.

Unless these suits are resolved, the Ayodhya dispute can never be solved legally. The Centre tried to sidestep them by passing the Ayodhya Acquisition Bill and acquiring the entire area in March 1993. This was, however, challenged in the Supreme Court. The court upheld the acquisition but ruled that the Centre had no right to do with the land whatever it liked; it could only administer the area and hand it over to whoever the High Court rules is the real owner.

Since the chances of a court decision are remote only fresh legislation, passed by a two-thirds majority in Parliament, can enable the VHP and the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas to own the land.

June 7, 1998
Source: the-week.com




Page  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19 
 
 
 
© 2002 AYODHYA.COM All Rights Reserved.