The Preamble of Constitution of Bharat envisages Social Justice.  The term ‘Justice’ in its essentiality means acceptance and reconciliation with the truth ; for which investigation and adjudication is necessary. One cannot assert constitutionalism with such an interpretation that causes unnecessary delay in discovery of truth , propagation of false narratives , and continuous attacks on sacrosanct faith of majority on one hand and cry for justice on the other. The 1991 legislation reflects the dim consciousness of a particular political party ; prioritizing radical heads of religious denominations and institutions.

They say you cannot wake up someone who is pretending to sleep. That is exactly how the whole liberal – left ecosystem has been behaving for seven decades now, despite the fact that the bitter truth of KASHI VISHWANATH is visible to the naked eye. It is the essence of Indian Religious Architecture that Nandi Statue always faces towards Shiva temple. Why in Kashi is it facing the Gyanvapi Masjid ? A question that marxist distortians have conveniently skipped to answer.

That being said, now let us look at the act of 1991 which prohibited conversion of places of worship. This legislation fails at the very moment when it does not distinguish between conversion and reinstatement. 

Conversion means to alter the principal entity of a place. No hindu is demanding it. World’s oldest mosque exists in India :  Cheraman Juma Mosque that was built in 629 CE. Do you hear any hindu demanding its conversion into a temple ? NO. Because it’s principal entity is a Mosque. Hindu Kings donated muslim traders land to construct the Mosque even before Macca – Madina of Arabia or Al – Aksa of Jerusalem was built. Such has been our legacy. Reinstatement on the other hand, simply means restoring the principal identity of a religious place that was destroyed and converted during the era of Muslim Invasion.

I have no hesitation in saying that in the Ram Janmbhumi Case, the Supreme Court had enough substance on record to rule that the Disputed Babri Structure was built after destroying the temple ; but the bench refrained themselves out of political correctness.

Is it even a question why reinstatement should be allowed or can reinstatement be allowed in a Secular country ? Secularism is not something that India as a civilizational entity was foreign to. We’ve always been secular, if it wasn’t the case Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism wouldn’t flourish. Prasi and Jews wouldn’t have found refuge in India. Our Constitution only recognizes the doctrine of Secularism, which we have shown adherence to.

For 1400 years, Islamic Theology has allowed murders of people of other faiths and vandalizing their pilgrims. To allow the status quo of a Islamic Structure over a destroyed Hindu Temple is upholding the Islamic theology and ideology by State, which is inherently anti secular and is against the rights under Art. 19, 21 and 25 of hindus. A foreign invader, who came to India, had utmost hatred and contempt towards natives, killed millions of them, put their women into slavery, destroyed their temples and encroached the land cannot become the source of deriving title and possession as he and his descendants make no case of being treated as a resident acquiring land peacefully.

Section 9 Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provides that a civil court can take cognizance of a suit of civil nature, unless expressly or impliedly barred. However this bar is not absolute, but only created to confer jurisdiction of a particular class of cases to specialized tribunals. For example : agriculture disputes are triable  by Revenue Courts, Industrial Disputes are triable by Industrial Disputes Tribunal and so on and so forth. But Section 9 has never been interpreted in such a manner so as to take away the jurisdiction of judicial or quasi – judicial authorities. A law cannot take away an aggrieved person’s right to reach a court of competent jurisdiction as it would infringe the basic structure of division of power among organs of State, when he has a plea substantiated by evidence. Similarly, jurisdiction of courts cannot be taken away completely to pronounce judgement and grant relief ( AIR 2019 SC 2249 ).

As far as the question of adverse possession is concerned, it requires both acquisition and possession to be peaceful. An acquisition achieved through committing violence does not qualify for bestowing title into the bandit. Inability to exercise the right of private defence due to extreme violence by the perpetrator, does not perfect his title. If a bandit comes to your house, kills half of your family members by deceit, threatens to kill  remaining of your family, that does not make him owner of your house because you chose to flee to save your family.  There cannot be a peaceful possession if the acquisition itself was violent and blood stained.

Act of 1991 has given the wrong cut off date i.e 15 August 1947 as we have already discussed that India has been a secular civilisation. If the cut off date has to be fixed it must be before 712 AD i.e. around the first Islamic invasion of India as afterwards forceful conversions of temples started.  He who seeks equity must do equity. A trespasser or his representative in interest who has converted a place of worship by force, cannot seek protection from reinstatement. Baba Vishwanath the deity, is a legal person and is entitled to :

  • Propagate his religion from his temple under Art. 25 ;
  • Lawful residence from which he is deprived ;

His rights can’t be disregarded to provide status quo . The doctrine of status quo can be applied only in those cases where  the conduct of party seeking is reasonable and lawful ; not available to violent trespassers.  A rightful owner’s right cannot be superseded by an arbitrary law.

As far as the question of limitation is concerned in case of violent acquisition and possession, the cause of action is recurring in nature.

Missir – ae – alamgiri ( biography of aurungzeb ) written by his personal biographer saqi mustad khan page 55 year 1669 entry 88.

DISCLAIMER: The author is solely responsible for the views expressed in this article. The author carries the responsibility for citing and/or licensing of images utilized within the text.