The Supreme Court's Use of Article 142 in the Ayodhya Verdict: A Comprehensive Analysis

The Ayodhya verdict marked a significant milestone in India's legal history, particularly in how the Supreme Court utilized its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The case, one of the longest civil disputes in India's judicial history, revolved around the 1500 square yards of disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid once stood, until it was demolished in 1992 by karsevaks. The Supreme Court, using Article 142, made a comprehensive judgment that extended far beyond merely settling the land claims.

Case Background

The Ayodhya land dispute began in the early 1990s and involved multiple parties, including the

The Supreme Court revisited the case in 2019, combining the appeals that had originated from different benches of the Allahabad High Court. The decision was reached after extensive hearings and numerous legal arguments. The court's judgment not only clarified the ownership of the land but also addressed the claims and counter-claims of various parties, including the deity Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, the Nirmohi Akhada, and the Sunni Central Waqf Board.

Article 142 of the Indian Constitution

Article 142, a fundamental provision in the Indian Constitution, empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice.” This power is particularly significant in cases where legal disputes cannot be resolved through conventional judicial means. The Court can use this power to achieve justice in a manner that goes beyond the technicalities of the law and addresses the broader issues of social justice and reconciliation.

First Utilization of Article 142

In the Ram Janmabhumi case, the Supreme Court invoked Article 142 twice, each time making significant interventions. The first instance involved providing a 5-acre piece of land for the construction of a mosque. This decision was made because neither party had mentioned the piece of land in their arguments. By invoking Article 142, the Court was able to ensure that justice was served by addressing the claims of both parties.

Second Utilization of Article 142

The second invocation of Article 142 involved directing the Center government to include the Nirmohi Akhada in the trust to be created for building the Ram temple. This directive was made despite the fact that no such prayer had been made by any party in the original suits or before the Allahabad High Court. The Court’s intervention was critical in ensuring a balanced and equitable resolution of the dispute, which would have otherwise resulted in the Nirmohi Akhada being left without a share in the temple trust.

Impact and Significance

The use of Article 142 in the Ayodhya case demonstrated the Court's commitment to achieving an outcome that was not only legally sound but also socially just. The decision was widely praised for its comprehensive approach to resolving a deeply entrenched dispute that had polarized society for decades. By invoking Article 142, the Supreme Court undertook a broader role in reconciling the different claims and ensuring that all parties felt a sense of fairness and justice was met.

Broader Implications

The Ayodhya verdict has broader implications beyond the specific case. It sets a precedent for future disputes where legal remedies alone may not suffice. The case illustrates the dynamic role of the Supreme Court in making judicial decisions that address not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of justice and reconciliation. This approach is particularly relevant in India's pluralistic society, where traditional legal methods may not always resolve deeply rooted social and cultural conflicts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's use of Article 142 in the Ayodhya case was a landmark decision that highlighted the power and flexibility of the Court in addressing complex and contentious issues. The decision to provide a 5-acre piece of land for a mosque and to include the Nirmohi Akhada in the temple trust demonstrates the Court's willingness to transcend legal strictures and pursue a path of justice that would heal the wounds of a deeply divided society.