Supreme Court Dismisses Shia Waqf Board’s Claim in Long-Standing Ayodhya Dispute

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Shia Central Board of Waqf, Uttar Pradesh vs. Sunni Central Board of Waqf, ruled on a crucial issue related to the decades-old Ayodhya land dispute. The petition filed by the Shia Waqf Board sought to challenge a 1946 judgment of the Civil Judge, Faizabad, which had declared the Babri Masjid property to be under the control of the Sunni Waqf Board. The petitioners sought to overturn this ruling and claim administrative rights over the disputed site.

However, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition on account of an inordinate delay of 24,964 days (approximately 68 years) in filing the appeal. This ruling upholds the previous judicial decisions and reinforces the legal position that the Babri Masjid property was historically managed by the Sunni Waqf Board.

Background of the Case

The origins of this case date back to 1946, when the Civil Judge of Faizabad issued a ruling that the Babri Masjid property belonged to the Sunni Waqf Board. The Shia Waqf Board did not challenge this decision for over 68 years. In 2017, the Board filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, seeking to reclaim administrative rights over the mosque.

The key contentions of the Shia Waqf Board were:

• The Babri Masjid was built by Mir Baqi, a commander in Babur’s army, who was a Shia Muslim. Hence, the administration of the mosque should be under Shia control.
• The Sunni Waqf Board had unlawfully assumed control over the property without any valid legal claim.
• The 1946 judgment was flawed and should be overturned to correct historical injustice.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Shia Waqf Board)

The Shia Waqf Board’s legal team presented the following key arguments:

• The Babri Masjid was constructed by Mir Baqi, who followed the Shia sect of Islam, and therefore, it should be managed by Shias.
• The 1946 judgment was based on incorrect historical interpretations and did not consider the Shia community’s claims.
• Due to political and administrative constraints, the Shia Waqf Board was unable to file a legal challenge earlier.
• The principle of justice demands that rightful ownership should be restored regardless of the passage of time.

Arguments by the Respondent (Sunni Waqf Board)

The Sunni Waqf Board strongly opposed the petition, arguing:

• The 1946 judgment was final and binding, as the Shia Waqf Board did not appeal within the legally prescribed time frame.
• The Babri Masjid had been under Sunni control for centuries, and there was no evidence to support the claim that it was a Shia mosque.
• The delay of nearly seven decades in filing the petition demonstrated a lack of bona fide interest.
• Allowing such delayed petitions would open the floodgates for historical disputes to be endlessly re-litigated.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S.A. Bobde, Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S. Abdul Nazeer, dismissed the petition outright due to the unexplained and excessive delay in filing the appeal.

1. Excessive and Unexplained Delay

• The Court noted that a delay of 24,964 days was highly excessive and had not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner.
• The judgment stated:
  

  “There is an inordinate delay of 24,964 days in the Special Leave Petition filed by the Shia Central Board of Waqf, Uttar Pradesh against the final judgment dated 30 March 1946 of the Civil Judge, Faizabad. The delay has not been adequately explained.”

2. Finality of the 1946 Judgment

• The Court emphasized that the principle of finality in litigation must be upheld.
• It ruled:
  

  “Litigation cannot be reopened at the whims of parties decades after a final verdict, especially when no new evidence has been presented.”

3. Protection Against Historical Re-litigation

• The Court warned that allowing such belated petitions could destabilize settled legal principles and encourage reopening of historical cases.
• It remarked:
  

  “If every historical dispute were to be re-litigated after several decades, the entire judicial system would collapse under the weight of old grievances.”

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has several significant implications:

• Affirms the Sunni Waqf Board’s Control: Legally establishes that the Babri Masjid property was rightfully under Sunni control.
• Strengthens the Principle of Judicial Finality: Prevents the reopening of settled legal disputes after excessive delays.
• Prevents Historical Re-litigation: Ensures that courts are not burdened with cases that should have been challenged within statutory time limits.
• Reinforces Due Process: Highlights the necessity of filing appeals within prescribed time limits to maintain judicial discipline.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Shia Waqf Board’s claim in this case reinforces the importance of timely litigation and the doctrine of finality in judicial decisions. By rejecting the attempt to reopen a 74-year-old dispute, the Court has ensured that legal certainty and stability are maintained. This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for preventing the re-litigation of long-settled historical claims.

Petitioner Name: Shia Central Board of Waqf, Uttar Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Sunni Central Board of Waqf.
Judgment By: Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 09-11-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shia Central Board o vs Sunni Central Board Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 09-11-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Ranjan Gogoi
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments November 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category