Ayodhya in times of Mahabharata

 In the Mahabharata, Ayodhya is mentioned as the capital of the Ikshvaku kings at many places. However, in the list of places of pilgrimage the description of the Gopratara Ghat, which was a part of Ayodhya, is found in the following slokas -

गोप्रतारं ततो गच्छेत् सरय्वास्तीर्थमुत्तमम्। यत्र रामो गतः स्वर्गं सभृत्यबलवाहनः।। सा् च वीरो महाराज तस्य तीर्थस्य तेजसा। रामस्य च प्रसादेन व्यवसायाच्च भारत।। तस्स्तींर्थे नरः स्नात्वा गोप्रतारे नराधिप। सर्वपापविशुद्धात्मा स्वर्गलोके महीयते।।         (Vanaparva, 84/70-72)These slokas find place in the critical edition of the Maha-bharata also. The meaning is as follows: Thereafter one should go to Gopratara which is the best pilgrim place (tirtha) on the Sarayu river where Rama went to heaven with all his followers along with the splendour of that tirth. By the grace and efforts of Rama, a man attains heaven by taking bath in Gopratara and becomes pure from all sins. Thus, Ayodhya was a pilgrim centre during the days of the composition of the Mahabharata also.

The Gopratara is now called Guptar Ghat which is at Faizabad near Cantonment area. The photograph of the Rama temple at Gopratara Ghat taken sometime during the last quarter of the 19th century and published in the book 'Padri Elliot of Faizabad: A Memorial' in 1906.

The general misconception that after the departure of Lord Rama to the Vaikuntha and establishment of the capitals of at Kusavati (near the Vindhya mountain) by Kusa and at Saravati Sravasti) by Lava Ayodhya became desolate and it remained so until its discovery by Vikramaditya is far from truth. The fact is that when Kusa was ruling from newly established capital Kusavati; the Nagaradevi of Ayodhya one night went to see Kusa and narrated her woes and requested him to restore the capital at Ayodhya. Next morning, Kusa left for Ayodhya ( ) and rebuilt Ayodhya with his guild of artists in such a way that it looked as grand as it was in Rama's time. Kalidasa has described it eloquently in Raghuvamsa in the 16th canto in these words:        तां शिल्पिसंघाः प्रभुणा नियुक्तास्तथागतां संभृतसाधनत्वात्। पुं नवीचक्रुरपां विसर्गान्मेघा निदाघग्लपितामिवोर्वीम्।।38।। . By the order of the king Kusa guilds of artisans, with their advanced instruments, renovated Ayodhya, as if clouds, by the order of Indra, made the hot earth green by rain-fall.वसन्स तस्यां वसतौ रघूणां पुराणशोभामधिरोपितायाम्। न मैथिलेयः स्पृहयांबभूव भर्त्रे दिवो नाप्यलकेश्वराय || 42 || Ayodhya looked as beautiful as it was earlier. There the son of Maithili, i.e. Kusa attained such happiness that he had no desire left for becoming the master of the paradise and the Alakapuri. Descendants of Kusa ruled from Ayodhya; whereas those of Lava from Sravasti. King Brihadbala, who was killed by Abhimanyu in the Mahabharata war, was in the line of Lava.

Ram Lalla's 'next friend' or 'sakha'

 In its unanimous verdict that brought down the curtains on the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case, a five-judge Supreme Court bench declared Ram Lalla as a juristic person. A juristic person is a non-human legal entity recognised by the law and entitled to rights and duties in the same way as a human being.

“In the present case, the first plaintiff has been the object of worship for several hundred years and the underlying purpose of continued worship is apparent even absent any express dedication or trust….. At the heart of the present dispute are questions pertaining to the rightful manager of the deity and the access of the devotees of Lord Ram to the idols. To ensure the legal protection of the underlying purpose and practically adjudicate upon the dispute, the legal personality of the first plaintiff is recognised,” the court said.

Analysing its own judgements of the past the top court said legal personality even may be conferred on an abstract idea. In addition, legal personality is conferred on Hindu idols to provide courts with a conceptual framework to adjudicate disputes involving claims over disputed property endowed to or appurtenant to Hindu idols.

Order 32 of CPC recognises a 'sitting deity' as an individual. As in the eyes of the law, the sitting deity is a perpetual minor the court appointed him the 'sakha' the day his petition was admitted. Ram sakha's counsel, Madan Mohan Pandey, said, "Since the deity is a perpetual minor, he had to be represented by his 'friend'. Any person who has no interest prejudicial to the interest of the deity and is a Hindu worshipper of the Lord can apply for appointment in this capacity."
 
Ram Lalla was first represented by a next friend in 1989, when Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a judge of the Allahabad high court, filed a petition in the Faizabad district court in connection with the Ayodhya dispute. A resident of Allahabad's Katra Mohalla, he spent his childhood in Faizabad where his father was an inspector of schools and his mother, a devotee of Lord Ram. The Agarwal family was Vaishnav. For several years, Agarwal was the president of Aurobindo Society.

After retiring in 1983, Agarwal went to Faizabad and collected data, including revenue records, to prove that the land belonged to Ram Lalla. He filed a writ petition at Allahabad High Court's Lucknow bench on July 1, 1989 seeking his appointment as Ram Lalla's 'sakha' (friend). As 'Ram sakha', Agarwal filed civil suit no 5 on behalf of the deity at Ram Janmabhoomi and Asthan Janmabhoomi, where Ram Lalla was represented as plaintiff no. 1. The merits of suit number 5, many believe, is what tipped the balance in favour of Ram Lalla. Senior BJP leader Lalji Tandon said, "I met Agarwal many times during my tenure as a minister. He was committed to the cause of Ram Lalla. His deep knowledge of the law made the case in the title suit stronger."

He worked late into the night for years on the filing and told his daughter, Minu, that he was typing up “the most important case in India,” she said in an interview.
Justice Agarwal was frustrated by how slowly the litigation over the site was proceeding. He believed the evidence was clear that the site belonged to Ram, his daughter said.

 Deoki Nandan Agarwal died on April 8, 2002 after which an application was made to the court to allow T.P Verma, a retired history professor at BHU, to be appointed as next friend of Ram Lalla. In 2008, Verma applied for retirement from the status of "next friend" or "sakha" , citing old age and ill health.  In February 2008,Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Triloki Nath Pandey, became next friend — a next of friend is a person who acts on behalf of another individual who does not have the legal capacity to act on his or her own behalf. A resident of Ballia's Daya Chhapra village, Pandey's association with Ram Lalla began in 1974 when he became an RSS 'pracharak'. In 1982, he joined the party's Sanskriti Raksha Yojana. He moved to Karsevakpuram in 1992 .

Judgement on Demolition of Disputed Structure also known as Babri Masjid by CBI Court Lucknow on 30th September , 2020 .

 In its judgment running into more than 2,000 pages and written in Hindi , Special CBI Judge held on 30th September that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) failed to produce any conclusive evidence to prove any connivance that led to the destruction of the mosque.

The trial was conducted for the alleged commission of offences under Sections 147 (Rioting), 153-A (Promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion), 153-B (Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) 295 (Injuring or defiling place of worship) 295-A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class), and 505 (Statements conducing to public mischief) IPC read with Sections 149 (Unlawful assembly) and 120B (Criminal conspiracy) IPC.

The Court held that there was nothing on record to establish the existence of a conspiracy to demolish the Babri Masjid.

With regard to the newspaper clippings related to the dismantling of the disputed structure presented by CBI, the Court opined that the same was not acceptable as evidence, as their original copies were not produced.

The CBI's reliance on photographs from the demolished site was also dismissed, as the negatives of the same were not submitted before the Court.

Apart from the news reports and photographs, the Court also considered the video tapes shown by the investigating agency. It, however, refused to rely on the same, on the grounds that the video cassettes were not in sealed envelopes and that the footage was not clear.

The CBI Court also held that no such act was done by the accused BJP leaders which hurt the spirit of another sect or affected the unity and integrity of the nation.

While the state government had made all safety arrangements and efforts were made by the leaders, the structure at Babri Masjid was demolished by a mob.

The Court opined that the accused persons had no knowledge or premonition that a mob of rowdy kar sevaks would demolish the structure. 

 

 

Timeline of Events

 On the day of demolition of disputed structure , two cases — crime number 197/1992 and crime number 198/1992 registered through two different FIRs lodged at Ram Janmabhoomi police station, Ayodhya. During investigation, 47 more FIRs were lodged.

 On December 6, 1992, the first FIR was lodged by station house officer, RJB Police Station, PN Shukla at 5.15pm against lakhs of unknown Kar Sevaks under IPC sections 395 (dacoity), 397(dacoity or robbery with attempt to cause death), 332 (causing hurt to deter public servants), 337, 338 (grievous hurt), 295 (injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class), 297 (trespass in any place of worship) and 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion). The time of occurrence in this report shown around 12noon to 12.15pm. The case was registered under Crime No. 198 of 1992.

 On the same day, the second FIR was lodged by in charge, RJB police outpost, Ganga Prasad Tiwari  at same police station at 5.25pm, saying that at about 10am while he was on duty near Kar Seva organized by Vishwa Hindu Parishad, he found that Lal Krishna Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Ashok Singhal, Vinay Katiyar, Giriraj Kishore, Vishnu Hari Dalmia, Uma Bharti and Sadhvi Ritambhara were sitting on the dais at Ram Katha Kunj and were instigating the Kar Sevaks through speeches. As a consequence of that, several Kar Sevaks got infuriated and demolished the disputed structure. This case was registered under Crime No. 198 of 1992. Those named were accused of inflammatory speeches, spreading communal hatred, promoting enmity, making imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration and statements conducing to public mischief.

The cases 197/1992 and 198/1992 handed over to the CB-CID by UP government. On the basis of case number 198, Advani and other leaders were arrested two days after demolition, on December 8, following imposition of President’s Rule in UP. The 197/1992 case handed over to the CBI while the 198/1992 case remained with the CBCID. UP state government, in consultation with the Allahabad high court  sets up a special court of judicial magistrate at Lalitpur district for trial of all the cases including 197/1992 and 198/1992. The decision is taken because it was perceived too risky to lodge the political leaders in Ayodhya or Lucknow, hence police kept them at a guest house in Lalitpur.

FEBRUARY 27, 1993  : CB-CID files chargesheet in Lalitpur court in 198/1992 case under sections 153-A, 153-B, 505, 147 (punishment for rioting), 149 (membership of unlawful assembly, guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common  object). On March 1, special magistrate takes cognizance of chargesheet.  In consultation with the high court, UP government through a notification modified the December 12, 1992 notification and changed the place of sitting of the special court of judicial magistrate from Lalitpur to Rae Bareli. All  cases including 197/1992 and 198/1992 were shifted to Rae Bareli. This was done because traveling to Lalitpur was time consuming and posed various problem. 

AUGUST 26, 1993 :  The 198/1992 case and 47 cases related to assault on the media also handed over to CBI by the Centre on state government’s request so that they can be probed and tried together with the 197/1992.

SEPTEMBER 8, 1993  :  UP government, then under President’s rule, in consultation with HC, issued a notification to create a special CBI court in Lucknow headed by additional chief judicial magistrate (Ayodhya Matters) with jurisdiction in the entire UP.

SEPTEMBER 9, 1993  :  The 197/1992 case along with 47 other cases referred to the Lucknow special court. However, the 198/192 case that named big leaders not included in the transfer and its trial continued in Rae Bareli.

SEPTEMBER 9, 1993 : CBI seeks permission from Rae Bareli trial court to reinvestigate 198/1992. Permission was granted by court on September 10, 1993.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1993  :  CBI requested state government to transfer 198/1992 case to Lucknow special court so that both the related cases can be tried together in the interest of justice.

OCTOBER 5, 1993 :  CBI clubs all the 49 cases including 197/1992 and 198/1997 and files a composite chargesheet in the Lucknow special court saying that all the cases were part of the same transaction. The chargesheet named 40 persons, mostly senior politicians and included 8 named in the 198/1992 FIR. This is where conspiracy charge was levelled against Advani and other high profile accused. (It might be mentioned that CBI did not submit the chargesheet at Rae Bareli court where trial of 198/1992 was on

OCTOBER 8, 1993  :  UP government amends the notification dated September 9, 1993, inserting the case 198/1992, so that all 49 cases can be tried together by Lucknow special court. However, it was done without consulting the HC.

OCTOBER 11, 1993  :  Lucknow special court takes cognizance of offences based on consolidated chargesheet filed by CBI.

OCTOBER 18, 1993   : As CBI had asked for reinvestigation of the 198/1992 case from the Rae Bareli court earlier, the latter sought a report from the agency regarding progress of the investigation.

DECEMBER 6, 1993  :  CBI informs Rae Bareli court that it has filed a consolidated chargesheet at Lucknow court

JANUARY 24, 1994   : The magistrate at Rae Bareli directs transfer of the records to Lucknow. A day later, records were brought to Lucknow. Objections against the move by some accused were rejected by the court on March 23, 1994.

AUGUST 27, 1994   : After hearing all the accused and parties, Lucknow special court committed the case for trial.

NOVEMBER 11, 1994 :  Lucknow special court permits CBI to carry on probe.

JANUARY 11, 1996  :  Supplementary chargesheet filed by CBI adding 9 more names as accused in Lucknow CBI court.