Search the Internet          Tips

SC rules out bhumi puja at Ayodhya

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected plans for a bhumi puja near the disputed site at Ayodhya on March 15 and ordered that no religious activity be allowed at the acquired land.

"No part of the acquired land shall be handed over to anyone by the central government. The same shall be retained and no part will be allowed to be used for any other purpose till further orders," a three-judge bench of the court ruled.

The apex court's order on maintaining status quo came after Attorney General Soli Sorabjee, representing the Centre, put up a strong case for permitting a symbolic puja by 60 to 70 sants at a site 300 metres away from the disputed spot in the acquired undisputed land.

No karsevaks would be allowed to enter the acquired land, he submitted, adding that law and order was being strictly enforced in Ayodhya.

The crucial order by the bench, comprising Justice B N Kirpal, Justice G B Pattanaik and Justice V N Khare, came on a bunch of petitions, including one that sought restraint on the Vishwa Hindu Parishad's plans for a bhumi puja in Ayodhya on Friday.

The court admitted a petition by one Mohammed Aslam Bhure against the VHP's plans and issued notices to the Centre, Uttar Pradesh government and the VHP while referring it to a larger bench.

The court said that the larger bench would consider the correct interpretation of the 1994 judgment vis-a-vis the Centre's stand.

The court order said: "We direct that on 67.73 acres of land located on plot no.159/60 in village Ramchandrapuram vested in the central government, no religious activity of any nature by anyone, including bhumi puja, shila puja and shila daan shall be allowed till further orders."

The court plied Sorabjee with questions like how the bhumi puja could be allowed when in its 1994 order the court had said that status quo should be maintained at the acquired land. It also sought to know whether the Centre had complied with the 1994 orders.

Sorabjee submitted that the "correct interpretation" of the 1994 judgement was that the status quo direction was regarding the disputed structure and hence a symbolic puja for a three hour duration could be allowed.

The bench observed that the Centre was under a constitutional obligation to adhere to the status quo directive given by the court.

The attorney general said that a reading of the 1994 judgment and the previous order of the Supreme Court would show that "temporary use, for a limited duration, of the undisputed adjacent land is not prohibited, notwithstanding pendency of the title suits before the Allahabad high court".

This should not impair the right of Muslims contrarily in the event of their succeeding in the title suit, he maintained.

The court said, "We are concerned with the 1994 order. No part of the land vested in the central government can be used for any other purpose. It is very clear."

"As the situation now stands, is it correct for the Centre to take a stand that such a puja be permitted?" it asked.

The attorney general replied, "If the court directs today that no puja should be carried out there, we will abide by it. But, let me say that we fully appreciate the apprehensions of Muslims in the light of past events."

"The idea is how to meet their apprehensions and perform the puja there," he said, adding even if the puja was allowed, the government was very clear that the symbolic shila daan would not include any construction activity.

Sorabjee said that the government was seeking the permission of the court only as a one-time affair and karsevaks would not be permitted to enter the puja site.

He said the karsevaks, not exceeding 1,000 in number, would be merely witnessing the puja from a distance on the undisputed land. They would be sent only in batches, he added.

The Ayodhya Issue: Complete Coverage

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report