After 500 yrs, examining Babur's dedication of mosque 'little problematic': SC in Ayodhya case
New Delhi, Aug 29: The Supreme Court Thursday termed as a "little problematic" the demand of a Hindu body that it judicially scrutinise, after almost 500 years, whether Mughal emperor Babur dedicated the disputed structure in Ayodhya to the 'Allah' for it to be a valid mosque under the tenets of Islam.
The counsel for 'Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti' told a 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, that the Allahabad High Court erred in saying it will not go into the issue as to whether Babur constructed the mosque without following 'Sharia', 'hadith and other Islamic practices.
Senior advocate P N Mishra, appearing for the Hindu body, a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a Muslim party in the case, said that instead of deciding on the allegations that Babur was not the owner of the land and was incapable of validly executing 'wakf' for the mosque, the high court held that since almost 500 years have passed, it would not deal with the issue which may be a matter of "debate for historians".
"In Islam, even an absolute sovereign like Babur could not do everything. He still had to abide by the religion," Mishra told the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, on the 15th day of the hearing in the politically sensitive case of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute.
"What High Court suggested here that Babur had the absolute power and he had done something...that cannot be reviewed. They (HC) said that now we cannot get into the question as to what Babur did was against 'sharia'," the bench said.
It added that rather than getting into the alleged violations of Islamic law and practices, the High Court said it would deal with the aspect of people believing it to be a mosque.
"This will be little problematic, if we asked the judicial validity of the dedication of the land as mosque by Babur," the bench observed.
It then said that Muslims have been claiming that they have been worshipping for more than 400 years and Hindus say that they are offering 'puja' for last two millennia and the argument was that the courts should examine the plea whether the act of the monarch was invalid.
Mishra said there was no religious forum for deciding such disputes and the courts cannot simply refuse to decide such issues and there are judgements which provided that it can be done on the basis of Hindu and Muslim laws.
"What you are saying is that the (High) court should have decided as to what Babur did was right or wrong," Justice Bobde asked.
To this, the senior lawyer said, "How can the court say that it will not decide" and the case is being pursued for almost 70 years in courts.
If there was continuous conflict between two communities, the religious tenets should be considered while deciding as to which side has got the better case to lay claim over the disputed party as both the religious place cannot be there on one plot, Mishra said.
At the outset, the lawyer referred to a High Court order to say that the historical books can be considered under the Evidence law to decide the dispute.
He said the majority verdict of the High Court had held that the Muslims failed to prove that the structure was built by Babur in 1528.
Justice S U Khan concurred with Justice Sudhir Agrawal on this but said that as there was no contrary evidence put up by Hindus so there was the probability that the structure was a mosque, Mishra said and referred to the gist of conclusions of the HC verdict to highlight the point that Babur was not the owner of the land.
Muslims had relied upon two inscriptions which were placed at entrance and pulpit of the structure, he said, adding that they were forged as they were first seen by a magistrate after 1934.
The bench said that irrespective of the fact that there was no valid 'wakf', a mosque existed there and asked the lawyer as to how he will deal with it.
"There are two aspects, first is the structure. The structure was built is not disputed. Second is that you are saying there was the issue whether it was dedicated or not.
"But there was a structure that was in shape of a mosque.. how do you deny its existence. It does not take away the validity of the mosque," the bench asked.
The structure cannot be treated as mosque, Mishra responded and referred to Islamic texts and testimonies of various religious experts who had testified as witnesses in the case.
He said a mosque is not valid if it is built on the land of people of another religion and the 'wakif" should be the owner of the land for dedicating it to the almighty.
He then referred to a 'shahi farman' (Royal order) of emperor Shahjahan and said that the land was ordered to be reverted to a Hindu temple owner, Sati Das in Gujarat, after prince Aurangzeb had forcibly taken it over and had converted into a mosque.
"The temple can be returned back to the real owner after the usurpation of land is held to be invalid," he said.
He then distinguished the characteristics of a temple and mosque and said that the disputed structure lacked the qualities of being a mosque.
The advancing of arguments would continue on Friday.
The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land equally among the three parties Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the Supreme Court against the verdict.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC regularises interim bail granted to Gujarat-based journalist in money laundering case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Friday confirmed its earlier order of granting interim bail to journalist Mahesh Langa in a money laundering case linked to a matter involving an alleged financial fraud lodged by the Enforcement Directorate at Ahmedabad.
The top court on December 15 last year had granted the interim bail to Langa and fixed the case for further hearing on April 10.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi took note of the submissions of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the probe agency, and said the interim order is confirmed.
The bench agreed to the contention of Mehta that the observations made in the bail order shall not be construed as remarks on merits of the case. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had represented Langa.
Earlier, opposing the bail plea, the solicitor general had said, "Journalists extorting money and saying that if you do not pay, I will write against you is a serious offence."
The bench had granted the relief and ordered a day-to-day trial in the case and imposed certain conditions on the journalist, including asking him not to write any article in any media outlet about his sub-judice case and seek any adjournments before the special court.
"The petitioner will furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the designated special court under the PMLA," it said, adding, "The special court is directed to take up the case on a day-to-day basis for consideration of charge and if charge is framed, recording the statements of all the nine witnesses."
The bench directed Langa and his counsel in the trial court to extend "full cooperation to the special court", and said "no adjournment shall be sought or permitted on the ground that quashing proceedings are separately pending before the high court".
It said this condition is being imposed as the high court has not granted a stay on the trial proceedings.
"The Directorate of Enforcement shall also cooperate with the special judge for taking up the case on a day-to-day basis," the apex court said.
Langa will be at liberty to raise all legal contentions, objections and defence pleas, and place the material for the special court's consideration in accordance with law, it added.
"The petitioner shall not publish or write any article in his position as an assistant editor of a newspaper with respect to the allegations, which are sub-judice against him, before the special judge at Ahmedabad," the bench said.
It also made it clear that the interim bail is being granted subject to the petitioner's "good conduct and behaviour".
On July 31, last year, the Gujarat High Court rejected Langa's bail plea in the case on the grounds that if he is granted the relief, prejudice would be caused to the prosecution case.
On February 25, 2025, the ED said it arrested Langa in connection with a money-laundering investigation linked to an alleged financial fraud.
The journalist was first arrested in October 2024 in a Goods and Services Tax (GST) fraud case.
The money laundering case against Langa stems from two FIRs filed by the Ahmedabad Police on charges of fraud, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating and causing wrongful loss of lakhs of rupees to certain people.
