In my tweets, I have already said chicanery has been practiced while writing the Ram Mandir judgment. Imputing such motives to SC judges is a very strong attitude; therefore, it would be better if my opinion is elaborated below for the purpose of record if nothing else, even though now the topic is stale.

Ram Mandir Judgment, a Property Dispute

It is actually wrong to call it Ram Mandir judgment. It was a property dispute, where one of the suits was filed by Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan. There were two main questions before the court. First, whether Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan was a juristic person in the facts of the case; i.e. in the property dispute before it? Secondly, assuming Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan was a juristic person, was he in possession of the disputed land prior to Muslims? Of course, Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan could have resided in a temple only, and thus if he was in possession of the land prior to Muslims, the temple pre-dated the mosque.

The SC decided in favour of Bhagwaan Ram Lalla Virajmaan on both the above issues. No archaeological survey or any other extraneous evidence was relied upon to reach the above opinions. And my claim of practice of chicanery is based on the reading and understanding of the deliberations done on the above two questions.

Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan, a Juristic Person

Before elaborating on SC’s deliberation on the question of Bhagwaan Ram Lallla Virajmaan as a juristic person, it is necessary to first understand the concept of Hindu gods as juristic persons under law. This is an old concept, as per which the management of temple where the Hindu god is situated in the form of an idol is run in the name of the Hindu god. This is done for the matter of convenience as old Hindu temples that have been built on grants from rich persons or kings don’t have trusts to manage the funds. Such grants are called dedication to pious purpose of continued worship of a deity physically manifesting in the form of an idol situated in the temple. This manifestation in an idol is accepted as a legal fiction in courts and doesn’t mean recognition of the Hindu god as supreme being as a juristic person. In other words, god as a juristic person is restricted to the context.

So, to prove a deity as a juristic person in a court, two things have to be established. First, there was a dedication for pious purpose of continued worship of a deity. Secondly, an idol of the deity was installed in the temple in context. In case of Bhagwaan Ram Lalla Virajmaan, both dedication to pious purpose and the idol were found absent. The only thing found present was the long continued worship of the deity in a non-idol form.

The court extended the concept of a juristic person as an idol of a deity. It extended juristic person from the idol to the dedication to pious purpose of continued worship itself. It reasoned even after the idol is destroyed or moved, it wouldn’t affect its legal personality (as the legal personality is actually the concept of dedication to pious purpose for continued worship). Similarly, it reasoned that Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan has been the object of worship for several years and the underlying purpose of continued worship is apparent even absent any express dedication. Thus, the court held Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan, which was just an abstract idea of continued worship sans any idol and actual dedication, was held to be a juristic person through the above mentioned extension.

In simpler term, it is like saying if some people start believing that their beloved god resides in a particular building, say Rashtrapati Bhawan, and start worshiping the god therefore, they can make a valid claim on Rashtrapati Bhawan as a temple and abode of their beloved god. Of course, their claim will fail because no such claim has been made till date when Rashtrapatis have already been occupying Rashtrapati Bhawan for long, but the claim can nevertheless be made. And that’s what is important.

Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan, the Holder of Possessory Title

This brings me to my second question; that is, who was in prior possession of the disputed land. Was it Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan or was it Muslims? The need to ask this question arose because there was no ownership deed of the disputed land in anybody’s name. So, the dispute had to be decided on the basis of possessory title; i.e., the one in longer possession would be entitled to the land in dispute.

Before understanding what SC did, let’s understand what Allahabad High Court had done. There were actually three, not two, claimants of the disputed land: Nirmohi Akhara as a shebait and manager, Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan, and Muslims. Allahabad HC had partitioned the disputed land between the three parties finding them to be in joint possession and thus to be in joint-ownership by application of section 110 of the Evidence Act. When the judgment was passed, I had reservations about it. But, after the SC judgment, the Allahabad HC judgment seems to be a much better solution.

Anyways, let’s see what SC has done. First, SC has thrown out the claim of Nirmohi Akhara altogether. Coming to the dispute between Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan and Muslims, the facts are very clear. There was no idol inside the disputed land till 1949, whereafter a Ram idol surreptitiously appeared inside Babri Mosque in the inner courtyard. The areas in the outer courtyard, where Sita Rasoi & Ram Chabutra were situated, were, however, being worshiped by Hindus.

Muslims claimed the surreptious appearance of idol inside the mosque to be an act of dispossession by Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan from their lawful occupation of Babri Mosque. SC also held both the placement of idol in 1949 and demolition of the mosque structure in 1992 as illegal. Therefore, SC decreed the suit of the Muslims by providing them 5 acre of alternate land. But the suit of Bhagwaan Ram Lalla Virajmaan was also decreed, and both the inner courtyard (where the mosque structure was situated) and the outer courtyard were given to him for the construction of a temple.

SC ruled that Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan always occupied the outer courtyard through his continued worship, and also he produced evidence of his continued worship in inner courtyard prior to 1857. Whereas Muslims didn’t produce any evidence of continued worship in inner courtyard from 1528 (when the mosque was constructed) to 1857. Post 1857, though a grill-brick wall was constructed separating the inner courtyard from the outer courtyard, but the purpose of that boundary was not to decide proprietary rights of the parties. It was just a peace & order measure following communal riots between Hindus & Muslims. In other words, the Hindus continued worshiping the deity believing him to be inside the inner courtyard albeit from the boundary created by the grill-brick wall.

Basically, once again the court came to the rescue of Hindus on the basis of continued worship. SC opined that the people doing continued worship did so with the undeterred belief that Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan resided inside the disputed land. Since the very concept of Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan includes his presence inside the disputed land, his continued worship from wherever is enough proof of his occupation of the disputed land.

Circular Reference Error

I have called the above derivation of all answers on the basis of contiued worship as circular reference error in my tweets. Let me explain how. Circular reference error is when the answer points to the question and vice-versa. Here the question was whether Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan occupied disputed land before Muslims did. The answer has been provided in the definition of Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan, which definition includes his presence in the disputed land just on the basis of continued worship on the belief of the people that he is so present in the disputed land, not in any physical manifestation in the form of an idol. In other words, the moment you define Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan on the basis of continued worship, you automatically presume his occupation of the disputed land as well on the basis of the very same continued worship, else he can’t be defined at all.

To the question who is Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan, the answer is that he is the one who occupies the disputed land. To the question, who occupies the disputed land, once Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan has been defined, the answer will always be Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajmaan. In other words, answer points to the question and the question points to the answer. This is like asking god: did you create the world? If he answers in affirmative, then you have no choice but to accept the existence of god.

I DON’T THINK I NEED TO DEFINE CHICANERY NOW