After 1992: violence, inquiries and the 2019 verdict

Detail

1. How the state responded after 6 December 1992 (beyond NCERT)

The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993

• The Union government first issued an Ordinance. An Ordinance is a temporary law made by the President when Parliament is not sitting (Art. 123). The Act then replaced it.
• The Act came into force on 7 January 1993 and was enacted on 3 April 1993 [2].
• It was passed because of the demolition of the structure on 6 December 1992 [3].
• The Union took over about 67 acres of land, including the disputed site. The Supreme Court described this as "about 68 acres" [4].
• From the day the Act began, all right, title and interest in the land passed to the Central Government [2][3]. Owners were to be paid the market value of their property [3].
• The Act has four chapters: Preliminary; Acquisition; Management and Administration of Property; Miscellaneous [3].
• Sections 6 and 7 let the Centre hand the land over to a trust or another body and manage it. In 2019 the Supreme Court used these same sections to create the temple trust [4].

Presidential reference under Art. 143

• Art. 143 is the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction. The President may ask the Court for its opinion on a question of law or fact of public importance. The Court may decline to answer.
• The 1993 reference asked one question: was there a Hindu temple or religious structure on the site before the mosque was built?

Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994)

• A Constitution Bench of five judges decided the case by a 3:2 majority.
• It upheld the 1993 Act, but struck down Section 4(3) [4]. That section had ended all pending title suits.

• Section 4(3) struck down → the civil suits on who owned the site came back to life → the title dispute went back to the courts.

• The Court returned the Art. 143 reference unanswered. It said the question was not suitable for an advisory answer.

• It also said that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam, and that namaz can be offered anywhere. This view is contested. Critics say it weakened the legal protection of mosques. In 2018 the Court refused to send this question to a larger bench.

The Liberhan Ayodhya Commission

• A Commission of Inquiry is a fact-finding body. The government sets it up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. Its findings are recommendations, not court verdicts.
• It was set up in December 1992, with Justice M.S. Liberhan as its sole member. It looked into the events that led to the demolition [10].
• It reported in 2009, after about 17 years, making it one of India's longest-running inquiries. The report and an Action Taken Report were placed before Parliament in 2009 [11].
• Its chapters cover topics such as "The Joint Common Enterprise", "Police Administration" and "Sequence of Events" [10][11]. They show the report's main finding: the demolition was planned, not a sudden act.

The criminal case

• The CBI special court in Lucknow acquitted all the accused in September 2020. It found no proof of a criminal conspiracy.
• Lesson: an inquiry commission's findings do not by themselves lead to criminal convictions.

2. The Gujarat riots of 2002 (beyond the current NCERT; covered in earlier editions)

What happened

• On 27 February 2002, a coach of the Sabarmati Express carrying kar sevaks was set on fire at Godhra [6].
• Kar sevaks are volunteers doing religious service. Here, these were activists returning from Ayodhya.
• Communal violence then spread across Gujarat. It killed more than 1,000 people, mostly Muslims [7].
• Many survivors lived in relief camps for a long time and could not go back to their homes.

Follow-up by institutions

Body / step	What it did
NHRC (National Human Rights Commission, set up under the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993)	Gave preliminary comments and recommendations on 1 April 2002 [6]. It found "a serious failure of intelligence and action by the State Government" [6]. It noted claims that FIRs were badly recorded and that senior political figures were trying to influence investigations [6]. It asked for the CBI to probe major cases: Godhra, Gulbarg Society, Naroda Patiya, Sardarpura and Best Bakery [6].
Nanavati-Mehta Commission	A Commission of Inquiry set up by the Gujarat government to look into Godhra and the riots that followed.
Supreme Court-appointed SIT (2008)	A Special Investigation Team (a team of chosen officers who report to the Court, not to the state). It re-investigated major riot cases, led by former CBI director R.K. Raghavan.
Trials moved out of Gujarat	In cases such as Bilkis Bano, the investigation and trial took place in Maharashtra on the Supreme Court's orders [8]. The Best Bakery case was retried after witnesses were threatened.
Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat (24 June 2022)	A three-judge bench upheld the SIT's closure report. A closure report tells the court that the police found no evidence to charge anyone. The Court rejected the claim of a "larger conspiracy" at the top level.
Bilkis Bano remission case (8 January 2024)	The Supreme Court quashed the Gujarat government's early release (remission) of 11 convicts [8]. Remission means cutting short a prison sentence. The trial was held in Maharashtra, so Maharashtra, not Gujarat, was the "appropriate government" to decide remission. The convicts were ordered back to jail.

How to analyse it (constitutional frame)

• Art. 355 says the Union must protect every state against internal disturbance and make sure each state is governed according to the Constitution.
• Art. 21 (right to life) puts a duty on the state to protect life. It also gives victims a right to a fair investigation and trial.
• Accountability chain: the state fails to prevent violence → the NHRC and courts step in → the probe or trial is moved away from the state's control (SIT, transfer of trials) → conviction or closure.

3. The courts settle the title dispute

Allahabad High Court (30 September 2010)

• The three-judge bench gave a split decision.
• It divided the 2.77-acre disputed area three ways, among:
• Ram Lalla Virajman, the deity, treated in law as a person who can sue
• the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious order

• the Sunni Central Waqf Board

• Every side appealed to the Supreme Court.

M. Siddiq (D) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das (9 November 2019)

• Bench: a five-judge Constitution Bench, led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The decision was unanimous (5-0) [4][5].
• What was disputed: about 1,500 square yards of land in Ayodhya, claimed by both Hindu and Muslim parties. Five suits had been filed between 1950 and 1989 [4].
• Main reasoning:
• The Court decided on the balance of probabilities (which side's case is more likely true; this is the civil-law standard).
• There was clear evidence that Hindus worshipped there before the British annexed Oudh in 1857 [4].
• Muslims gave no evidence that they had exclusive possession of the inner structure before 1857 [4].

• The Court relied on documents and witness accounts of Hindu faith and worship. It also used the ASI report, which found a non-Islamic structure underneath the mosque.

• What the Court also recorded:

• The ASI did not prove that a temple was demolished to build the mosque.
• The placing of idols inside the mosque in 1949 was a desecration and was illegal.

• The 1992 demolition was illegal. It was an "egregious violation of the rule of law".

• Orders:

• Site to a trust: the Centre must frame a scheme under Sections 6 and 7 of the 1993 Act and set up a trust to receive the land and build a temple [4].

• Mosque land: using Art. 142, 5 acres go to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The land would come from the Centre's acquired land or from the UP government, within Ayodhya [4]. Art. 142 lets the Supreme Court pass any order needed to do "complete justice" in a case.

• NCERT quotes the judgment on the equality of all faiths and on the Hindu belief that the site is Ram's birthplace.

After the verdict

• 5 February 2020: the Centre announced the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust in Parliament. It has 15 trustees, and one trustee must always be from the Dalit community [9].
• August 2020: bhoomi pujan, the foundation ceremony.
• 22 January 2024: pran pratishtha, the consecration of the idol in the temple.

4. Debates (present neutrally)

• Closure or reward?
• NCERT's view: the verdict was accepted peacefully ("from legal proceedings to amicable acceptance"). This shows consensus-building and democratic maturity.

• Critics' view: the Court itself called the 1992 act illegal, yet the final result matched what the demolition aimed for. They say this legitimised the outcome.

• Faith against evidence: how much should belief and long worship count in deciding who owns land? The Court said it decided on evidence of possession, not on faith alone.

• Rule of law against reconciliation: the civil dispute was settled, but the 2020 acquittals left no one criminally responsible for the demolition.
• Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991:
• It freezes the religious character of every place of worship as it stood on 15 August 1947. Ayodhya was exempted from it.
• New disputes now challenge this freeze: Gyanvapi (Varanasi), Mathura and Sambhal.

• In December 2024, the Supreme Court passed an interim order (a temporary order until the final decision). It said no new suits may be registered, and courts must pass no effective orders, including surveys, in pending cases (verify current).

• Exam link: NCERT's Exercise Q1 includes the Ram Janmabhoomi judgment in its chronology of events.

Prelims Hooks

• Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993: in force from 7 January 1993, enacted 3 April 1993; about 67 acres (the SC said "about 68").
• Ismail Faruqui (1994): upheld the 1993 Act but struck down Section 4(3), which had ended pending suits. It returned the Art. 143 reference unanswered.
• Art. 143 gives advisory jurisdiction, and the Court may decline to answer. Art. 142 is for "complete justice"; it was the basis for the 5-acre mosque land.
• Liberhan Commission: set up December 1992, reported 2009; a single-member Commission of Inquiry under the 1952 Act.
• Allahabad HC (2010): split 2.77 acres three ways, among Ram Lalla, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board. SC (2019) gave the site to a trust and 5 acres to the Sunni Central Waqf Board.
• M. Siddiq (9 November 2019): 5-0, CJI Ranjan Gogoi. The ASI did not prove a temple was demolished, and the 1949 and 1992 acts were illegal.
• Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust (5 February 2020): 15 trustees, with one Dalit trustee always.
• NHRC on Gujarat (1 April 2002): found a "serious failure of intelligence and action" by the state and recommended a CBI probe.
• Zakia Jafri (2022): upheld the SIT closure report. Bilkis Bano (January 2024): remission quashed, and Maharashtra was the "appropriate government".
• Trap: the Places of Worship Act 1991 cut-off date is 15 August 1947, not 26 January 1950, and Ayodhya was exempt from it.

Mains Points

• Accountability for communal violence (GS-II):
• Gujarat 2002 shows how NHRC findings, SC-appointed SITs and trial transfers step in when the state machinery fails.
• The duty under Art. 355 and Art. 21 is the anchor.

• Reforms: the Prevention of Communal Violence Bill debate, police reform (Prakash Singh, 2006) and witness protection.

• Limits of inquiry commissions:

• The Liberhan report took 17 years, and the criminal trial ended in acquittals (2020).

• Fix: time-bound inquiries, and stronger links between commission findings and prosecution.

• Judicial resolution of faith disputes:

• Supporting view: M. Siddiq used Art. 142 to balance the claims, and the verdict was accepted peacefully, a mark of democratic maturity.

• Critical view: it set faith-based evidence against the rule of law, and it accepted an outcome that came from an illegal act.

• Places of Worship Act 1991 (GS-I/II):

• The Act protects secularism and social peace by freezing the status of places of worship as of 1947.
• New suits (Gyanvapi, Mathura, Sambhal) and the December 2024 SC interim order test whether that freeze will hold.