Writ Petition of Subramanian Swamy on his fundamental right to worship in Ram Mandir (SC, 2016)

8/20/2019 Writ Petition of Subramanian Swamy on his fundamental right to worship in Ram Mandir (SC, 2016)

1/38

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO:________ OF 2016

(A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA)

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY …...PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR .....RESPONDENT

WITH

I.A NO. OF 2016

APPLICATION FOR SEEKING PERMISSION TO APPEAR

AND ARGUE THE MATTER IN-PERSON

PAPER BOOK

(For index kindly see inside)

PETITIONER-IN-PERSON: DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY


2/38

INDEX

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

S.NO. DATE OF RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PG. NO.


3/38

INDEX

S.NO. PARTICULARS PG.NO.

1. Listing Performa

2. Synopsis & List of dates and events

3. Writ petition under Article 32

of the Constitution of India with affidavit.

4. I.A. No:______/2016. An application for

seeking permission to appear and argue

the matter in-person.


4/38

SYNOPSIS

The present Petition is being filed by the Petitioner urging this

Hon‘ble Court to allow the Hindus to rebuild the Rama Temple at the

Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya, State of U.P. The exact spot

where Lord Rama was born (Ram Janmabhoomi) has been and

remains firmly identified in the Hindu mind and is held as sacred.

This is the very area where stood from 1528 till December 6, 1992, a

structure that came to be known as Babri Masjid, put up in 1528 by

Babar‘s commander Mir Baqi.

The Petitioner is a devout Hindu Bhakta of Lord Sri Rama, who, vide

the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India,

seeks to enforce the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 25

& Article 21 of the Indian Constitution to the Petitioner as well as to

other persons belonging to the Hindu religion.

That Article 25 of the Constitution grants to a person the freedom to―freely‖ practice, profess and propagate his/her religious beliefs. Any

restriction/denial of access to place of religious worship results in the

failure to protect the spirit and soul of the person and consequently

his/her life.

That the fundamental right to protection of life under Article 21

includes the protection of not only the body but also the protection of

spirit and soul of the person, which is inherent with access to faith and

religious belief.

Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that this Hon‘ble Court is

duty bound to ensure that in enforcing a person‘s right guaranteed

under Article 32 of the Constitution, it acts in a manner in furtherance

of enforcement of fundamental rights especially when adjudicating on

issues of social justice and larger public interest.

The Petitioner also approaches this Hon‘ble Court for

directions/orders to expedite the adjudication and/or disposal of the

order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court dated

30.09.2010, the appeal(s) of which are pending before this Hon‘ble

Court. This Hon‘ble Court while issuing notice on the Appeals on

09.05.2011 (in Civil Appeal 10866-67 of 2010) ordered status quo as


5/38

per the 1994 SC judgment in the case of I smail F arooqui vs Union of

India [(1994) 6 SCC 360]wherein this Hon‘ble Court restricted the

exercise of right of worship. Such restriction affects the fundamental

rights of the Petitioner as well as other persons of the Hindu religion.

Therefore, the Petitioner urges this Hon‘ble Court for expeditious

adjudication and disposal of the said matter to protect the right to life

which includes the spirit and soul as guaranteed to the Petitioner as

well as other Hindus.

The restriction affects the fundamental rights (under Article 21) of the

Hindus, however, it does not in any way affect the fundamental rights

of the Muslims. There is a well-established difference in the

underlying faith and religious beliefs of the Hindus and Muslims,

including the manner of prayers and the place of worship. In Ismail

Farooqui vs Union of I ndia (supra), the Supreme Court of India

observed:

―It has been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in

Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered

in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come a property of

Allah … and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in

such a mosque, and even if the structure is demolished, the place

remains the same where namaz can be offered. Accordingly, its

acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of

India‖.

A temple and a masjid cannot be considered on a par as far as

sacredness is concerned. A masjid is not an essential part of Islam

religion, according to the above majority judgment of a Constitution

Bench of the Supreme Court, whereas according to the House of

Lords, U.K. (1991), the temple is always a temple even if in disuse or

ruins. Thus, the fundamental truth is that the Ram temple on Ram

Janmabhoomi has an overriding claim to the site than any mosque.

It is also well established by GPRS-directed excavations, done under

the Allahabad High Court monitoring and verification in 2002-03,

that a large temple did exist below where that Babri Masjid structure

once stood. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) carried out


6/38

excavations from 12.03.2003 to 07.08.2003, excavated 90 trenches

and submitted its report. Inscriptions found during excavations

describe it as a temple of Vishnu Hari. The ASI confirmed these

findings on investigations that were directed by the High Court.

Therefore, there exists conclusive evidence of there being a Ram

temple on the disputed site, consequently the Masjid was illegal,

erected contrary to Islamic tenets.

The Petitioner, therefore, approaches this Hon‘ble Court to guarantee

the enforcement of his (and other Hindus) fundamental rights and

permit the rebuilding of the Lord Rama temple on Ram

Janmabhoomi. He further urges this Hon‘ble Court to expedite

adjudication and disposal of the said matter pending before this

Hon‘ble Court. This Hon‘ble Court is duty bound as the guardian of

the Constitution to expedite the adjudication and disposal of the Ram

Janmabhoomi matter and in recognition of the larger public

importance hear the matter on day to day basis in furtherance of social justice.

LIST OF DATES

1528 The Babri mosque was built in

Ayodhya.The land on which the Babri

mosque was built is the 'Ram Janmabhoomi'

(birthplace of the God-king Rama). But, Mir

Baqi, one of Mughal king Babur's generals,

destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama

and built Babri Masjid (Babur's mosque) at

the site.

1859 The British administration erected a fence to

separate the places of worship, allowing the

inner court to be used by the Muslims and

the outer court by the Hindus.


7/38

1885 MahantRaghubar Das filed Suit No. 61/280

of 1885 in the Court of the Sub-Judge,

Faizabad, against the Secretary of State for

India, seeking permission to construct a

temple on the Ram Chabutra (adjoining the

Babri structure).

1886 The permission was not given but district

Judge of Faizabad court FEA Chamber (an

Englishman) gave his verdict and said, " It is

most unfortunate that a masjid should have

been built on land specially held sacred by

the Hindus, but as that event occurred 356

years ago, it is too late now to remedy the

grievance‖.Since the English, as policy

never sought to disturb the social status quo

in India as evidenced, the Judge took theeasy way out and dismissed the Suit.

December 22-23, 1949 50-60 people placed the idols of Ram and

other objects right under the central dome.

This led to the property going into the hands

of the receiver, and puja being conducted by

a pujari appointed by the receiver.

January 16, 1950 Gopal Singh Visharad filed a suit in the

Faizabad civil court (suit no 2 of 1950 now

registered as Other Original Suit No. 1 of

1989 in the High Court) seeking exclusive

rights for performing puja for Ram Lalla.

He sought a restraint order on the removal

of idols on which the judge issued a

temporary injunction. This order was later

confirmed by a Division Bench of the

Allahabad High Court.

December 5, 1950 MahantParamahansa Ramachandra Das

filed a suit (no 25 of 1950 now registered as


8/38

Other Original Suit No. 2 in the High Court)

for the continuation of puja and keeping the

idols in the Babri structure. In August 1990,

out of sheer frustration, the Mahant

withdrew the case.

December 17, 1959 The third suit (no 26 of 1959, now


1989 in the High Court) was filed by the

NirmohiAkhara seeking transfer of charge

of the disputed site from the receiver.

December 18, 1961 The fourth suit (no 12 of 1961 now


1989 in the High Court) was filed by the

U.P. Sunni Central Board of Wakfs for the

declaration and possession of the Babri site.

Significantly, this suit was filed with days to

go before the expiry of the 12-year

limitation period.

1984 The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) began

campaigning to build the Ram temple at

Ayodhya.

February 1, 1986 Order passed by the Faizabad District Judge

for opening locks of the Ram Janmabhoomi/

Babri Masjid and allowing pooja by

devotees.

February 3, 1986 Two days after the lock was opened, a small

group of Muslim lawyers petitioned the

High Court in Lucknow, to order that

nothing more happen to the site. The judge

issued a notice that the ―status quo‖ be

maintained.

February 1986 Prominent Muslim leaders decided to form

the Babri Masjid Action Committee.


9/38

November 9, 1989 With only days to go for the Lok Sabha

election, the Rajiv Gandhi government

allowed the VHP to perform the shilanyas

(foundation laying ceremony) of the temple,

thus implicitly accepting that the Hindus are

within their rights to build a temple on the

disputed site.

July 1, 1989 The fifth suit, in the name of Bhagwan Ram

LallaVirajman, was filed after a gap of 28

years. While the first four suits were filed

during periods of relative political calm, the

fifth suit coincided with the escalation in the

political movement. Only a month earlier,

the BJP had officially joined the movement.

1989 With Suit No. 2 withdrawn, only four title

suits remained in the Faizabad Civil Court.

In 1989, on an application by the then

Advocate General of U.P., these suits were

transferred to the High Court. On behalf of

the Hindus it was argued that the right to

worship the deity of Ram Lalla at the

disputed site in Ayodhya must be

recognised by the Court, as millions of

Hindus believed it to be the birthplace of

Lord Rama. Further, that in Hindu ethos and

Hindu customary law, unlike in other

religions, the concept of deity was a very

distinguishing feature. The Hindu side

quoted the Valmiki Ramayana, the

SkandaPuran, the Gita as also a whole range

of other literary and cultural evidence to

claim that Ram was born in Ayodhya. It

cited many accounts by foreign travellers of

the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th Century

besides a series of Gazetteers to argue that


10/38

not only before 1528 but even thereafter

Hindus held possession of the place.

September-October,

1990 Mr. L.K. Advani's Ram RathYatra

October 19, 1990 The RamJanmabhoomi/ Babri Masjid

(Acquisition of Area) Ordinance, 1990

promulgated to acquire the disputed shrine

and its adjoining area.

October 23, 1990 The Ram Janmaboomi/ Babri Masjid

(Acquisition of Area) Withdrawal

Ordinance 1990 promulgated to cancel the

earlier Ordinance.

December 6, 1992 Ram Janmabhoomi/Babri Masjidwas

attacked and demolished.The Idols wereremoved and reinstalled. However, a wall

and shed was erected on 6 and 7 December.

President‘s Rule was immediately imposed

in UP and the UP Assembly was dissolved.

December 27, 1992 Central Government decides to take over

Ram Janmabhoomi/ Babri Masjid site.

January 7, 1993 Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya

Ordinance issued. Core question of dispute

referred to the Supreme Court by the

President of India.

September 1993 A bench of five justices started deliberations

in September 1993.

September 14, 1994 Learned Solicitor General, in the aforestated

case submitted before the Hon‘ble Court the

Central Government‘s commitment through

an affidavit stating that “…if the question

referred is answered in the affirmative,


11/38

namely that a Hindu temple/structure did

exist prior to the construction of the

demolished structure, government action

will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu

community. If on the other hand, the

question is answered in the negative,

namely that no such Hindu temple/structure

existed at the relevant time, then

government action will be in support of the

wishes of the Muslim community….”

1994 M. Ismail Faruqui vs. Union of India ,

(1994) 6 SCC 360

The court, by a majority decision, upheld

the law acquiring the land. But it said the

government should hand over the small plot

of about a quarter-acre, where the mosque

and its two courtyards had stood, once the

suits claiming title to the site were decided.

The justices also reinstated those lawsuits,

which had been transferred to the HighCourt

in Lucknow from Faizabad.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court couldn‘t

resist a commentary on what happened on

the day of the Babri Masjid‘s demolition.

The Hindu community must, it said, ―bear

the cross on its chest for the misdeed of the

miscreants reasonably suspected to belong

to their religious fold .‖

In early 1995, the frontlines of the dispute

shifted back to the Lucknow Bench of the

Allahabad High Court. The suits claiming

title to the site were bundled together to be

part of the same case.


12/38

On the Hindu side, there were three suits.

One filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, an

Ayodhya local, in 1950 ( supra). Another,

filed in 1959, by the NirmohiAkhara, the

sect of sadhus dedicated to serving Ram

( supra). And another, filed in 1989 that

added a new dimension to the proceedings.

(A fourth suit, filed in 1950 by another

sadhu in Ayodhya had been withdrawn.)

On the Muslim side, there was the Uttar

Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqfs,

which was responsible for maintaining

Muslim holy sites, and six individual co-

plaintiffs from Ayodhya and neighbouring

areas.

In the above case, the Hon‘ble Court has

also held that a mosque is not an essential or

integral part of Islam. Hence, a mosque can

be demolished in certain circumstance under

secular law, and some other site can be used

for reading namaz. Accordingly, its

acquisition is not prohibited by the

provisions in the Constitution of India(para

70, 78, 80& 82). That is not the position vis

a vis a temple in which the idol has been

consecrated by pranaprathista puja and built

according to agama shastras. The Rama

idol on the chabutra (the chabutra was built

within the complex during Akbar‘s regime)

is one such consecrated idol. Also notable

historians have held that the temple earlier

to that, of which remains are still there in

the archaelogical records, must have been

built in the days of Raja Vikramaditya of

Ujjain.


13/38

1996 The recording of oral evidence started in the

summer of 1996 in Lucknow bench of the

Allahabad High Court.

2003 Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)

begins a court-ordered survey to find out

whether a temple of Ram existed on the

disputed site. The survey says there is

evidence of a temple beneath the mosque;

Muslims dispute the findings. A court rules

that seven Hindu leaders should stand trial

for inciting the destruction of the Babri

Masjid in 1992.

2004 Congress government comes to power at the

Centre after six years of BJP rule. Leader of

the Opposition L.K. Advani says his party

has an unwavering commitment to building

a Ram temple at Ayodhya.

July 2010 By July 2010, the lawyers had completed

their arguments. The Lucknow Bench of the

Allahabad High Court set a date —

September 30, 2010 – to deliver the first

verdict in a case that had begun 60 years

before.

September 30, 2010 Ayodhya verdict

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High

Court on September 30, decided to equally

divide the disputed land between the three

main litigants — the Uttar Pradesh Sunni

Central Waqf Board, NirmohiAkhara and

Ram LallaVirajman. The High Court order

meant that two-third of the land went to

Hindu representatives and one-third to

Muslim representatives, which was rejected


14/38

by both sides demanding claim to the entire

land.

The parties to the suit are in appeal before

Supreme Court in, and the matters are still

pending.

JamiatUlama-I -H ind vs. Mahant Suresh

Das (2011) 15 SCC 440: A bench of

Justices AftabAlam and R.M. Lodhaheld

that during the pendency of the above

appeals, the parties shall maintain status quo

at the disputed site as directed by the 1994

Constitution Bench.

17.2.2016 The present petition under Article 32 before

this Hon‘ble Court.


15/38





OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:

DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY

A-77, NIZAMUDDIN EAST,

NEW DELHI- 110013 …...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. THE UNION OF INDIA,

THROUGH THE SECRETARY

TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,

MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,

NORTH BLOCK, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,

NEW DELHI-110001

2. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

THROUGH THE SECRETARY TO

GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH

HOME DEPARTMENT,

LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI BHAWAN,

LUCKNOW, UTTAR PRADESH -226001

……….RESPONDENTS


16/38

TO,

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF

INDIA

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ENFORCEMENT OF

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS GUARANTEED TO THEPETITIONER AS WELL AS OTHER PERSONS BELONGING

TO THE HINDU RELIGION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA;

AND FOR THE DIRECTION OR ORDER BY THE SUPREME

COURT TO EXPEDITE THE ADJUDICATION OF THE

CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AS WELL

AS DETERMINING THE AFFECT OF THE CONTINUED

RESTRICTION ON THE EXERCISE OF FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS UNDER ARTICLE 25 IMPOSED BY THIS HON’BLE

COURT BY VIRTUE OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 9/05/2011

PASSED IN CIVIL APPEALS NOS 10866-67 OF 2010

AND SEEKING DIRECTION OR ORDER FOR

ENFORCEMENT OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER

ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEREBY

PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO LIFEAS UNDERSTOOD

AND INTERPRETED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT HAS BEEN

EXPANDED TO PROTECT AND ENSURE ACCESS TO

ESSENTIALS TO LIFE MUST NECESSARILY ALSO

INCLUDE THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT, FREEDOM

AND LIBERTY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE FREE ANDUNRESTRICTED ACCESS TO PLACE OF HIS/HER

RELIGIOUS WORSHIP;

AND FOR ENFORCING THE RIGHTS ACCUMULATED TO

THE PETITIONER AND OTHER PERSONS OF HINDU

RELIGION UNDER ARTICLE 25 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA PURSUANT TO THE REPORT OF THE


17/38

ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA (ASI) FOR

REBUILDING OF THE RAM TEMPLE ON THE RAMJANAM

BHOOMI SITUATED AT AYODHYA;

AND UNDER ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA FOR ENFORCING THE RIGHT OF THE PERSONS OF

THE HINDU RELIGION TO REBUILD AND MAINTAIN THE

RAM TEMPLE;

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The Petitioner is a nationally known public figure, active in

politics and public affairs. He has consistently and fearlessly

exposed corruption in high places. He is deeply concerned

with the protection of the Rule of Law and the enforcement of

the statutory duties of the Government as well as purity in

public life. The Petitioner holds a doctorate in Economics from

the world famous Harvard University in the U.S.A. where,

before returning to India he had taught Economics – and he still

continues to teach there every summer; and he had also taught

Economics at the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi,

where he was a full Professor. He is a senior politician, a

Member of Parliament for five terms, who has been a senior

Cabinet minister in the Central Government, holding the

portfolios of Commerce and Law & Justice (1990-91), and later

he was Chairman of the Commission for Labour Standards, a

post of Cabinet Rank (1994-96). Twice he has been elected to

the Rajya Sabha from the State of Uttar Pradesh, to the Lok

Sabha twice from Maharashtra and once from the State of


18/38

Tamil Nadu. He has numerous books and articles to his credit.

He has lectured both in India and abroad on national concerns

as well as on Economics. He has initiated and conscientiously

fought many public interest litigations. He regards this as a

duty he owes to his country.

2. The Petitioner is also a devout Hindu and a fervent bhakta of

Lord Sri Rama. He has argued before this Hon‘ble Court the

contentious Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project matter (the

Project involved rupturing the Rama Setu, held to be sacred by

Hindus); and therein had obtained a stay order to protect the

Rama Setu. Final orders thereon have been reserved by this

Hon‘ble Court.Also a Cabinet decision has been taken to ―not

touch‖ the ancient Ram Sethu or the Adam's Bridge in

implementation of the Sethusamudram Ship Channel Project.

3. That the Petitioner was also allowed by this Hon‘ble Court to

be impleaded in person in the Ram janambhoomi matter titles

as “Mohd. Aslam @Bhure vs. State of U.P. &Anr” Contempt

Petition (C) No. 98/1992 in Writ Petition No. 972& 977/1991

pertaining to the provision of basic amenities to the bhaktas and

devotees who come to worship at the present makeshift

RamlalaMandir. The devotees get no basic facilities like

drinking water. Shoe/chapel racks, toilets, parking spaces etc.

4. That the present petition is being filed by the Petitioner urging

this Hon‘ble Court to allow the Hindus to rebuild the Rama

Temple at the Ramjanambhoomi site in Ayodhya as the report

of the ASI has clearly stated that there existed the Lord Rama


19/38

Temple on the site before the same was demolished by Babar‘s

commander Mir Baqi.

5. That being a devout Hindu, the Petitioner has visited the Ram

JanmaBhoomi on numerous occasions. As Union Cabinet

Minister for Law and Justice in 1990-1991, he had participated

in deliberations for finding an amicable solution to the

controversial Babri Masjid issue and has a knowledge of the

contentious matter. However, during the tenure of the

successor government the Babri Masjid was destroyed by a

mob on 6/12/1992.

6. That there were numerous cases filed before the High Court of

Allahabad which were decided by one common judgment dated

30/09/2010. In the said judgment, the land subject matter of the

proceedings was partitioned into three parts – one portion to the

Ramlala Temple, one to the NirmohiAkhara& One to the Sunni

Wakf Board. The parties to the suit are in appeal before this

Hon‘ble Court and the matters are still pending.

7. That this Hon‘ble Court while admitting these appeals,

expressed its anguish on the judgment of the Lucknow Bench

of the High Court of Allahabad as there was no prayer by any

party before the High Court for partition of the suit property.

This Hon‘ble Court while issuing notice on the

Appeals,ordered status quo order as per the 1994 judgment

passed in the case of Dr. M. Ismail Farooqui. v. Union of India

&Ors reported at (1994) 6 SCC 394. That vide this judgment

puja at the disputed site has been permitted in a restricted form

by this Hon‘ble Cour t. It was directed in the said judgment that:


20/38

“However, confining the exercise of the right of worship of the

Hindu community to its reduced form within the disputed area

as on 7-1-1993, lesser than that exercised till the demolition on

6-12-1992, by the freeze enacted in Section 7(2) {of Act No.33

of 1933} appears to be reasonable and just in view of the fact

that miscreants who demolished the mosque are suspected to be

persons professing to practice Hindu religion. The Hindu

community must, therefore, bear the cross on its chest for the

misdeed of miscreants reasonably suspected to belong to their

religious fold”.

8. That the Petitioner is aggrieved by the said direction of this

Hon‘ble Court whereby there exists today a restricted form of

worship, restricted in the name of security and status quo

imposed on devotees to perform the worship especially in the

view of the fact that the ASI has clearly stated in its report that

the Lord Rama Temple existed on the site prior to the Babri

Masjid.

9. That the Learned Solicitor general, on 14/09/1994 in the

aforestated case submitted before this Hon‘ble Court the

Central Government‘s commitment through an affidavit stating

that “………if the question referred is answered in the

affirmative, namely that a Hindu temple/structure did exist

prior to the construction of the demolished structure,

government action will be in support of the wishes of the Hindu

community. If on the other hand, the question is answered in

the negative, namely that no such Hindu temple/structure


21/38

existed at the relevant time, then government action will be in

sup port of the wishes of the Muslim community….”

10. That it is conclusive now that there existed a Hindu temple on

the disputed site. The Hon‘ble High Court ordered a Ground

Penetrating Raar and Geo-radiology survey and when the

Ground Penetrating Radar detected what archeologist‘s term as

―Anomaly alignments‖, the Hon‘ble High Court directed the

ASI to excavate the site and permitted the parties to the dispute

to watch the excavation. The ASI carried out excavations from

12th

March to 7th

August 2003. It excavated 90 trenches in five

months and submitted its report. The last para of Summary of

Results submitted by the ASI before the Lucknow Bench of the

Hon‘ble High Court of Allahabad,mentions discovery of a

―massivestructurejustbelowtheDisputedStructure with

continuity of structural phases from 10th

Century up to

construction of disputed structure along with the yield of stone

and decorated bricks as well as mutilated sculpture of Divine

Couple, and carved architectural members including foliage

patterns, amalak, kapotpali doorjamb with semi-circular

pilaster, broken octagonal shaft of black schist pil lar , lotus

motif, Circular Shrine having pranala (waterchute) in the

north, fi fty pi ll ar bases in association with the huge structure

are indicative of remains which aredistinctivefeatures found

associated with the temples of North I ndia ‖.

11. That the Hon‘be High Court also examined the entire evidence

and gave its majority findings as under:


22/38

a. Both Ram Janmasthan(also called Ram Janmabhumi) and

Bhagwan Shree Ramlala Presiding over it (Virajman) are

Hindu Deities/Juristic Persons worshipped by Hindus since

time immemorial.

b. A Hindu Temple existed at Ram Janmasthan which was

demolished and Babri Masjid was erected at the site of the

Temple.

c.

The exact ‗place of birth‘ of Lord Ram was the site of Central

Dome of the erstwhile Masjid, and would alone be known as

Ram Janmasthan or Ram Janmabhumi

d. The Masjid was illegal, erected contrary to Islamic tenets; it

could not even be a Mosque by User.

12. That as there exists conclusive evidence of there being a Ram

Temple on the disputed site, the Petitioner wants to draw the

attention of this Hon‘ble Court that the Union Government is

bound bythe commitment made before this Hon‘ble Court in

the Farooqui case on 14/09/1994 (as stated in para 10 above).

13. That the Petitioner wants to point out the significance of the

rebuilding of the Lord Rama Temple on the site as is evident

from our various religious texts:

a. True and devout Hindus believe that Bhagvan Sri Rama was

born in Ayodhya, the then capital of a flourishing kingdom of

the Suryavansha dynasty. Lord Rama is venerated as Maryada

Pumshottam, and worshipped by Hindus of the north.

b. As an avatar of Vishnu, while it was first propagated by the

Tamil saints known as Nayanmars and Alwars who composed


23/38

many hymns and songs dedicated to his divinity, the North

which later came to accept Rama as one, especially thanks to

the saint Tulsidas, the fervour for Rama worship is much more.

In that sense, Sri Rama was the first truly national king of India,

supra region, supra vama or jati. That is why poet Iqbal called

him 'lmam-e-Hind‘

c. The exact spot of the palace where Rama was born has been

and remains firmly identified in the Hindu mind and is held as

sacred. This is the very area where stood from 1528 till

December 6, 1992 a structure that came to be known as Babri

Masjid, put up in 1528 by Babar‘s commander Mir Baqi.

d. In fact, Baqi was a Shia Muslim, and hence he intended it to be

a place for Shias to read namaz. Today, interestingly, it is the

Sunni Wakf Board, which entered the legal dispute as late as

1961, which has been litigating in the court claiming the title to

the land on which the structure once stood.I call it a "structure"

since it cannot be strictly called a mosque by Sunni

edictsbecause it did not have the mandatory minarets and wasu

[water pool].

e. That a Ram temple existed and or that there is a sacred spot

known as Ramjanmabhoomi is attested by many ancient

sources and by modern scientific methods.In SkandaPurana

[Chapter X, VaishnavKhand] the site is vividly described.

Valmiki Ramayana also describes it beautifully. Less than two

decades before Mir Baqi carried out the demolition of the Ram

Temple, Guru Nanak had visited the Ramjanmabhoomi and had

darshan of Ramlala in the mandir at the spot.


24/38

f. That there are many commentaries on this visit which are a part

of the Sikh scriptures. Guru Nanak himself records the

barbarity of Babar's invasions [in Guru Granth Sahib at p.418].

In Akbar‘s time, AbulFazal wrote the Ain-i-Akbari in which he

describes Ayodhya fame as the place of "Ram Chandra‘s

residence which in Treta age combined spiritual supremacy and

Kingship" [Tranlated by Col. H.S. Jarrett and published in

Kolkata in 1891].

g. That in Chapter X of the Report of the Archaeological Survey

of India, NW and Oudh (1889), it is mentioned (p.67) that

Babri Mosque ―was built in AD 1528 by Mir Khan on the very

spot where the old temple of Janmasthan of Ram Chandra was

standing."

h. Hindus throughout foreign occupation of India have deeply

held as sacred that exact spot where the Babri Masjid once

stood, as is recorded in many official and judicial proceedings.

In 1885, for example, MahantRaghubar 035 in 3 Suit No

61/280 of 1885 filed in the Court of the Faizabad Sub-Judge

against the Secretary of State for India (who was based in

London), prayed for permission to build a temple on the

chabutra outside the mosque. His suit was dismissed on March

18, 1886.However, in his Order the Sub-Judge, an Englishman,

stated thus: ―It is most unfortunate that a Masjid should have

been built on land specially held sacred by the Hindus. But as

the event occurred 358 years ago, it is too late now to remedy

the grievance.‖ Since the English as policy never sought to

disturb the social status quo in India as evidenced, for example,


25/38

on the ‗Sati' question, the Judge took the easy way out and

dismissed the Suit.

i. That it is now well established by GPRS- directed excavations

done under the Allahabad High court monitoring and

verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below

where that Babri Masjid structure once stood. Inscriptions

found during excavations describe it as a temple of Vishnu l-

lari who had killed the demon king Dasanan [Ravana].

14. That it is important to also carve out the differences in the

establishment of a Temple vis-à-vis the construction of a

Masjid (or Mosque). The fundamental question before us is -

Can a temple and a Masjid be considered on par as far as

sacredness is concerned? Relying on important court judgments

that hold the field today and news from Islamic countries, the

answer is: No. A Masjid is not an essential part of Islam:

a. In the case of Ismail Farooqui vs Union of India case[reported

in (1994) 6 SCC 376], this Hon‘ble Court observed: "It has

been contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in

Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are

offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to

come a property of Allah...and any person professing Islamic

faith can offer prayer in such a mosque, and even if the

structure is demolished, the place remains the same where

namaz can be offered‖ [para 80].The Constitution Bench

rebutted this contention stating: "The correct position may be


26/38

summarized thus: Under Mohammed law applicable in India,

the title to a mosque can be lost by adverse possession...A

mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of

lslam and namaz (prayer) can be offered anywhere, even in the

open. Accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the

provisions in the Constitution of India."[para 82].

b. Thus, any Government depriving the Muslims of the Babri

Masjid by an order of acquisition is within law, if the

government decides to do so in the interest of public order,

public health and morality.

c. The position in Islamic law is even clearer:-In Saudi Arabia the

authorities demolish mosque to lay roads and build apartment

building. Even the mosque where Islam's Prophet Mohammed

used to pray was demolished.If a waqf falls into disrepair and is

no longer of any benefit, such as if a house collapses and it is

not possible to rebuild it, or the people of the village move

away from a mosque so people no longer pray in the mosque,

or it has become too small for the congregation and it is not

possible to expand it where it is, or if its walls have developed

cracks and it is not possible to repair them or part of them

except by selling part of it, then it is permissible to sell part of it

in order to repair the rest of it. If it is not possible to benefit

from any part of it, it is permissible to sell the whole of it and

use the money to build another mosque.

d. That three of the world‘s oldest mosques are about to be

destroyed as Saudi Arabia embarks on a multi-billion-pound


27/38

expansion of Islam‘s second holiest site. Work on the Masjid

an-Nabawi in Medina, where the Prophet Mohamed is buried,

will when complete, the development will turn the mosque into

the world‘s largest building, with the capacity for 1.6 million

worshippers. Most of the expansion of Masjid an-Nabawi will

take place to the west of the existing mosque, which holds the

tombs of Islam‘s founder and two of his closest companions,

Abu Bakr and Umar.

e. In Mecca, the Masjid al-Haram, the holiest site in Islam and a

place where all Muslims are supposed to be equal, is now

overshadowed by the Jabal Omar complex, a development of

skyscraper apartments, hotels and an enormous clock tower. To

build it, the Saudi authorities destroyed the Ottoman era Ajyad

Fortress and the hill it stood on. Other historic sites lost include

the Prophet‘s birthplace – now a library – and the house of his

first wife, Khadijah, which was replaced with a public toilet

block.

f. Until recently out of the seven ancient mosques built to

commemorate the Battle of the Trench – a key moment in the

development of Islam – only two remain. Ten years ago, a

mosque which belonged to the Prophet‘s grandson was

dynamited. Pictures of the demolition that were secretly taken

and smuggled out of the kingdom showed the religious police

celebrating as the building collapsed.

g. In most of the Muslim world, shrines have been built. Visits to

graves are also commonplace. But Wahabism views such


28/38

practices with disdain. The religious police go to enormous

lengths to discourage people from praying at or visiting places

closely connected to the time of the Prophet while powerful

clerics work behind the scenes to promote the destruction of

historic sites.

h. A pamphlet published in 2007 by the Ministry of Islamic

Affairs – and endorsed by the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia,

Abdulaziz al Sheikh – called for the dome to be demolished and

the graves of Mohamed, Abu Bakr and Umar to be flattened.

Sheikh Ibn al-Uthaymeen, one of the 20th century‘s most

prolific Wahabi scholars, made similar demands.

i. But then what of a temple? Is it in the same category as the

mosque in our jurisprudence? This question of the status of a

temple-even if in ruins or without worship--had come up before

the British Courts in a case of a smuggled-out bronze Nataraja

statue which was up for auction in London. The Government of

India had decided to file a case in the London trial court in

1986 for recovery. The Nataraja statue had by then been traced

to a temple in ruins in Pathur, in Thanjavur district. A farmer

named Ramamoorthi had in 1976 accidently unearthed it while

digging mud with a spade near his hut.When the news spread,

touts of an antique dealer by name Ahmed Hussein reached him

and paid a small sum and smuggled it out to London, where in

1982 they sold it to Bumper Development Corporation Private

Limited. In turn the said Corporation sent it to the British

Museum for appraisal and possible purchase. By then the


29/38

Government of India was onto it and asked the UK government

to take action.

j. The Nataraja idol was seized by London Metropolitan Police,

and thus the Bumper Development Corporation sued the Police

in court for recovery but lost the case. An appeal was filed in

the Queen‘s Bench [i.e., our High Court level] which was

dismissed on April, 17 1989. So, the Bumper Corporation went

to the House of Lords [our Supreme Court level]. On February

13, 1991 when the Petitioner was the Law Minister, the

judgment came, which is truly landmark, dismissing Bumper‘s

final appeal [(1991) 4 All ER 638].

k. The House of Lords upheld the Indian Government‘s position

that because of the PranPratishtha puja, a temple is owned by

the deity, in this case Lord Shiva, and any Hindu can litigate on

behalf of the deity as a defacto trustee. The Bench concluded:

―We therefore hold that the temple is acceptable as party to

these proceedings and that it is as such entitled to sue for the

recovery of the Nataraja.‖ [Page 648 para g].

l. Thus, even if a temple is in ruins as the ASI had found the

Thanjavur temple or destroyed, as Ram Temple was in the

Babri Masjid area, any Hindu can sue on behalf of Lord Rama

in court for recovery of possession. No such ruling exists for a

mosque for the simple reason that a mosque is just a facilitation

centre for reading namaz, and has no essentiality for Islam

religion. It can be demolished and/or shifted as any building


30/38

can and are being so today in Arab countries and other Islamic

countires.

m. That is, the Ram Temple on Ram Janmabhoomi has an

overriding claim to the site than any mosque. This is the

fundamental truth in the Ayodhya dispute.

15. That in view of the averments made herein above, the

Petitioner seeks the benevolence of this Hon‘ble Court in

enforcement of his (and other Hindus) fundamental rights as

guaranteed under the Constitution of India and permit the

rebuilding of the Lord Rama Temple on the Ramjanambhoomi

in Ayodhya, State of U.P., on the following Grounds:

GROUNDS:

A. BECAUSE Article 25 of the Constitution of India grants

fundamental right to freely profess, practice and propagate

religion subject to public order. The restrictions on the right of

Hindus to freely profess, practice and propagate grants the

Petitioner, a devout Hindu, a right under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India to seek enforcement of the fundamental

rights.

B. BECAUSE the confining of the exercise of right to worship of

the Hindus is a restriction imposed not on account of public

order but on account of status quo order of this Hon‘ble Court

in terms of the judgment dated 14/09/1994 in Dr. M. Ismail

Farooqui. v. Union of India &Ors reported at (1994) 6 SCC

394.


31/38

C. BECAUSE the appeals against the Judgment dated 30/09/2010

of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has been

pending since 2011 wherein the Status Quo order as per the

Farooqui case has been extended. The delay in adjudication of

the matter before this Hon‘ble Court is affecting the

fundamental right of the persons belonging to the Hindu

religion.

D.

BECAUSE the restriction that reduces and prevents the persons

of the Hindu religion to practice, profess and propagate this

religion is not by an act of parliament/legislature but on account

of a judicial order which is pending adjudication.

E. BECAUSE the non-adjudication and delay in determining the

correctness of the judicial order is affecting the fundamental

rights of the Petitioner and thus the Petitioner has a right under

Article 32 to seek enforcement of such rights.

F. BECAUSE the issuance of directions by this Hon‘ble Court is

necessary to expedite the adjudication of the correctness of the

impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court.

G. BECAUSE this Hon‘ble Court has in recognition of the

importance for expeditious disposal of matters of greater public

importance expedited adjudication of pending cases by not only

taking them up immediately but hearing them on a day to day

basis but also directing other courts for expeditious disposal.

H. BECAUSE the fundamental rights of 80% of the Indian

population belonging to the Hindu religion is by itself a matter

of greater public importance than many other cases of financial


32/38

and economic importance which have been otherwise granted

expeditious hearing.

I. BECAUSE the denial of expeditious hearing as prayed for by

the Petitioner would result in denial of the rights granted by the

Constitution itself and that too by the pillar of democracy

enshrined with the responsibility and duty to mandate

enforcement of such rights.

J.

BECAUSE it is now well established by GPRS- directed

excavations done under the Allahabad High court monitoring

and verification in 2002-03, that a large temple did exist below

where that Babri Masjid structure once stood.

K. BECAUSE the continuation of the restricted form of puja is

violative of rights of the Petitioner and other Hindu devotees

under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

L. BECAUSE it is conclusive now that there existed a Hindu

temple on the disputed site. Thus, the Petitioner wants to draw

the attention of this Hon‘ble Court that the Union Government

is bound by the commitment made before this Hon‘ble Court in

the Farooqui case on 14/09/1994.

M. BECAUSE any Government depriving the Muslims of the

Babri Masjid by an order of acquisition is within law, if the

government decides to do so in the interest of public order,

public health and morality.

N. BECAUSE as per muslim law the mutawalli is authorized to

sell/alienate the Masjid when it falls into disrepair and is no

longer of any benefit, such as if a house collapses and it is not

possible to rebuild it, or the people of the village move away


33/38

from a mosque so people no longer pray in the mosque, or it

has become too small for the congregation and it is not possible

to expand it where it is, or if its walls have developed cracks

and it is not possible to repair them or part of them except by

selling part of it, then it is permissible to sell part of it in order

to repair the rest of it. If it is not possible to benefit from any

part of it, it is permissible to sell the whole of it and use the

money to build another mosque.Thus, a mosque is just a

facilitation centre for reading namaz, and has no essentiality for

Islam religion. It can be demolished and/or shifted as any

building can and are being so today in Arab countries and other

Islamic countries.

O.

BECAUSE three of the world‘s oldest mosques are about to be

destroyed as Saudi Arabia embarks on a multi-billion-pound

expansion of Islam‘s second holiest site. Work on the Masjid

an-Nabawi in Medina, where the Prophet Mohamed is buried,

will when complete, the development will turn the mosque into

the world‘s largest building, with the capacity for 1.6 million

worshippers. Most of the expansion of Masjid an-Nabawi will

take place to the west of the existing mosque, which holds the

tombs of Islam‘s founder and two of his closest companions,

Abu Bakr and Umar.

P. BECAUSE unlike Masjids the Hindu temple is owned by the

deity after the PranPrathistha Puja and thus any Hindu can

litigate on behalf of the deity as a defacto trustee.


34/38

16. That the Petitioner has not filed any writ petition in any other

court or any other petition of similar nature in any court of law,

other than the present petition before this Hon‘ble Court.

17. That the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of

India is the appropriate remedy and no other equally efficacious

remedy is available to the Petitioner given the far reaching

public interest and Hindu sentiments for the entire country.

This Hon‘ble Court is duty bound as the guardian of the

Constitution to expedite the adjudication and disposal of the

Ram Janmabhoomi matter and in recognition of the larger

public importance hear the matter on day to day basis in

furtherance of social justice. Hence, the present writ petition

under Article 32of the Constitution of India is being filed

before this Hon‘ble Court for its kind consideration.

PRAYER

In view of the submissions made herein above, the Petitioner

most humbly prays this Hon‘ble Court to:

(a) Pass a writ of mandamus for enforcement of the fundamental

rights of the Petitioner and other persons belonging to the

Hindu Religion under Article 26 of the Constitution of India by

allowing the rebuilding and maintenance of the Lord Rama

temple at the Ramjanambhoomi site at Ayodhya;

(b) Pass a direction to expedite the adjudication of the Civil

Appeals pending before this Hon‘ble Court numbered as Civil

Appeals 10866-67/2010 as the status quo Order dated


35/38

9/05/2011 is infringing on the fundamental rights of the

Petitioner and other Hindus;

(c) Pass a direction or order for enforcement of fundamental rights

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India

whereby protection of the right to life includes the right,

freedom and liberty of the Petitioner and other devout Hindus

to have free and unrestricted access to place of their worship;

(d)

Pass a direction or Order for enforcing the rights accumulated

to the Petitioner and other persons of Hindu religion under

Article 25 of the Constitution of India pursuant to the report of

the ASI for rebuilding of the Lord Rama Temple at the

Ramjanambhoomi site situated at Ayodhya;

(e)

Pass such other or further order/orders as this Hon‘ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the

case.

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER

SHALL, AS IN DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dr. Subramanian Swamy

Petitioner – In – Person

New Delhi:

Filed on:


36/38





OF INDIA)


VERSUS


AFFIDAVIT

I, Dr. Subramanian Swamy, aged 76 years, S/O Mr. Sitarama

Subramanian, R/O A-77, Nizamuddin East, New Delhi 110013, do

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:

1. That I am the Petitioner in the aforesaid matter and being

acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, I am

competent to depose about the same and file this affidavit.

2. That the accompanying list of dates from pages to , Writ

Petition from pages to and I.A from pages to has

been drafted under my instructions. The facts stated therein are

true and correct to my knowledge and belief.

3. That the annexures filed are true copies of their respectiveoriginals.

Deponent

VERIFICATION:

Verified at New Delhi on this the _____ day of February, 2016 that

the contents of my aforesaid affidavit are true and correct to my

knowledge and nothing has been concealed there from.

Deponent


37/38



I.A NO. OF 2016

INWRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO:________ OF 2016


OF INDIA)

IN THE MATTER OF:


VERSUS


APPLICATION FOR THE PERMISSION TO APPEAR AND

ARGUE THE MATTER IN-PERSON

To,

The Hon‘ble Chief Justice of India

And His Companion Judges of the

Supreme Court of India

at New Delhi

The humble application of the petitioner above named

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The present writ petition is being filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India , seeks to enforce the Fundamental Rights

guaranteed under Article 25 & Article 21 of the Indian

Constitution to the Petitioner as well as to other persons

belonging to the Hindu religion to allow the Hindus to rebuild

the Rama Temple at the Ram Janmabhoomi site in Ayodhya,

State of U.P.

2. That it is most respectfully submitted that Petitioner wish to

appear in-person because the petitioner as an aggrieved person

knows the facts of the matter. As such the permission to appear


38/38

and argue the matter in person may be granted to the petitioner

in the interest of justice.

3. That the Petitioner is a renowned economist, former Cabinet

Minister and a public figure deeply immersed in rooting out

corruption and abuse of power in high places and have been

involved previously in number of Public Interest Litigations.

Hence, the petitioner does not need service of an advocate even

if the Hon‘ble Court appoints Advocate on his behalf.

4. If the permission prayed for is not granted then the petitioner

shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

PRAYER

In the premises mentioned above, it is most respectfully prayed

that this Hon‘ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) Allow the present application and permit the Petitioner to

appear and argue the matter in-person; and

(b) pass such other and further orders as this Hon‘ble Court deem

just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

FILED BY:

(DR SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY)

Dated: PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

.

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	srini-kalyanaraman
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Writ Petition of Subramanian Swamy on his fundamental right to worship in Ram Mandir (SC, 2016)

Documents