Context:
-
In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered its landmark judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute, resolving one of India’s most contentious civil cases.
-
The verdict consciously avoided adjudicating religious belief or historical wrongs, instead relying on settled civil law doctrines such as possession and the balance (preponderance) of probabilities to determine title.
Key Highlights:
Nature and Scope of the Judgment
-
The judgment ran into 1,045 pages, adjudicating title over the 1,500 square yard disputed site.
-
It was a title suit, not a determination of theological truth or historical culpability.
-
The Court stressed that civil disputes must be resolved through legal standards, not faith-based assertions.
Principle of Possession
-
The Court found that:
-
Hindus had unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard.
-
There was a preponderance of evidence indicating Hindu possession of the inner courtyard prior to 1857.
-
-
Continuous worship and historical records supported long-standing possessory claims, tilting the balance in favour of one party.
Balance / Preponderance of Probabilities
-
The Court applied the “test of preponderance of probabilities”, the standard applicable in civil cases.
-
Instead of seeking absolute proof, the Court assessed:
-
Which claim was more likely to be true based on available evidence.
-
-
This approach proved decisive where documentary and testimonial evidence was fragmented or incomplete.
Role of Archaeological Evidence
-
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) excavation report was examined carefully.
-
The Court held that:
-
The ASI report was inconclusive on whether a temple was demolished to construct the Babri Masjid.
-
Existence of an underlying 12th-century structure could not be the legal basis for title.
-
-
Archaeological findings were treated as supportive but not determinative evidence.
Rejection of Historical and Conquest-Based Claims
-
The Court rejected arguments based on:
-
Mughal conquest
-
Alleged acts of demolition
-
-
It clarified that acts of conquest or historical wrongs do not confer property rights under modern civil law.
-
Supra-historical or political claims were held to be irrelevant in a constitutional adjudication of property rights.
Significance of the Judgment
-
Reaffirmed judicial secularism, keeping religious sentiment secondary to legal reasoning.
-
Demonstrated how modern constitutional courts interpret historical disputes through civil law frameworks.
-
Marked a rule-of-law resolution to a deeply polarising issue, strengthening institutional credibility.
-
Set a precedent for resolving heritage and religious disputes through evidence-based adjudication.
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
-
GS Paper 2 – Polity
-
Prelims:
-
Civil vs criminal standards of proof.
-
Concepts of balance of probabilities and preponderance of evidence.
-
Role of ASI in legal disputes.
-
-
Mains:
-
Role of judiciary in resolving sensitive socio-religious disputes.
-
Judicial secularism and adherence to constitutional values.
-
Importance of rule of law in managing historical and identity-based conflicts.
-
-