NEW DELHI, 8 March 2003 — The Supreme Court’s decision to reserve its verdict on an order given last year for “undisputed” land in Ayodhya spells yet another blow for the BJP-led government. Numerous petitions filed in the country’s highest court regarding the 67,703 acres of land in Ayodhya have highlighted differences on two key issues — whether the situation in Ayodhya is communally volatile, and who has the rightful claim on the land.
By reserving its judgment, the Supreme Court has signaled that the government should not take it for granted on two grounds. Firstly, the Supreme Court cannot be relied on to speedily rush through Ayodhya-related petitions. Secondly, the petition submitted by the government amounts to questioning the credibility of a decision taken by the Supreme Court last year. The country’s highest court said a year ago on March 13, “on the 67,703 acres of land which is vested with the government of India, no religious activity of any kind whether it is symbolic or actual ... shall be permitted or allowed to take place.”
Solicitor General Kirit Rawal argued on Thursday on behalf of the government that the land, which surrounds the site where the demolished Babri Mosque stood, should be returned to its rightful owner.
By reserving its decision, the Supreme Court has indicated that it is not fully convinced by the government’s argument that, as normalcy prevailed in Ayodhya, the standing order on the land should be lifted.
Opposing the government’s stand, senior advocate Siddhartha Shankar Ray, appearing for Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board, pointed out that as the situation in Ayodhya was very volatile, vacation of the status quo would amount to “putting a match-stick on gun-powder.”
Even if the court chose to give greater weight to the government’s demand, it would give the dispute a new turn — who among the Hindu groups is the “rightful claimant” to the undisputed land?
Against the claim made by the World Hindu Council (VHP), the Rajarajeswari Sitaram Trust has asserted itself as the “original owner” of the 67,703 acres acquired by the center. The court permitted this group to argue its case earlier this week.
Contending that the VHP “does not own even an inch of the land,” this trust has described VHP activists as “miscreants” who have “placed stones, patios, pillars, etc.” on the land.
When the VHP could not secure permission to demolish the mosque in 1989, it resorted to its own tactics. However, constructing the temple or using undisputed land for religious prayers appears to be judicially and socially quite a momentous task.
Once the communal aspect of the Ayodhya controversy is put by, Hindu groups will at last be battling out the question of ownership among themselves. The battle has already begun.
