10 Principles From Ayodhya Verdict That Paved Way For Bhojshala Temple

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Friday ruling that the Bhojshala complex is a temple did not emerge in isolation. It stands on the principles laid by the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya verdict.

Invoking ten principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the historic Ayodhya verdict, which paved the way for the construction of the Ram Temple, the Indore bench of the high court observed that archaeological interpretation is not guesswork but a multidisciplinary scientific exercise, one that courts can legitimately rely upon when assessing the religious and historical character of disputed sites. 

"We have considered the archaeological, historical facts, ASI notifications and survey report on the anvil of the statutory provisions of the ASI Act, as well as based on the principles laid down in the Ayodhya case," the judgement passed by the division bench of Justice Vijay Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi said.

A look at the 10 principles.

When Occurrence Of Fact Is More Likely Than Not

The high court said that principle number one is that the burden of proof on which a case like this has to be tested is not that of mathematical certainty or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but the standard which courts should accept is that of preponderance of probability. 

The preponderance of probability refers to the greater likelihood of one event or fact over another. In this context, a fact is considered proven when the evidence suggests that the occurrence of the fact is more likely than not.

Enquiry of Modern Courts Cannot Be To Ascertain Theological Perfection 

The high court explained that principle Number two from the Ayodhya judgement says that the Enquiry of Modern Courts cannot be to ascertain the theological perfection of the structure, but to ascertain evidence of faith and belief, Worship, subsistence of endowment, nature of endowment and whether it exists in perpetuity or not, Rreligious use, conduct of worshipper, historical assertion and continuity and consistency of religious belief. 

Interests Of Deity Can Be Protected By Worshippers 

Principle number three emanates from the Ayodhya judgment is that the protection of the deity, the endowed property, and the underlying pious purpose is the paramount objective of modern courts.  Thus, the interests of the deity or the purpose itself can be protected by its beneficiaries - the Worshippers. 

The rule of locus standi (who can file a case) is relaxed in this regard to ensure justice to the purpose. 

Destruction Of Idol Does Not Result In Termination Of Religious Endowments 

Principle number four, which has been culled out, is about the existence or the presence of a destroyed idol. The destruction or absence of the idol does not result in termination of the pious purpose, and consequently does not terminate the pious purpose or the endowment.

"Even where the idol is destroyed, or where the presence of the idol is intermittent or entirely absent, the legal personality created by the endowment i.e, the pious purpose, continues to subsist, The conferment of legal personality upon the pious purpose ensures that there exists an entity in whom the property may vest in an ideal sense, who may receive the dedication, and through whom the interests of devotees may be protected," the high court said. 

The court reasoned that conferment of legal personality upon the pious purpose ensures that there exists an entity in whom the property may vest in an ideal sense, who may receive the dedication, and through whom the interests of devotees may be protected.

"The protection of the deity is imperative for the modern Courts. Even in the absence of trust, where an endowment is made for a religious or charitable institution, and its object is pious, the institution is given juristic personality to secure the interest," the high court judgement read.

Faith And Belief Not Always Capable Of Proof, Test Genuineness Of Belief Not Rationality 

Principle number five in the Ayodhya verdict recognises the important principle when modern courts have to assess matters of faith and belief. 

The high court said, "Faith and belief are recognised to be of paramount importance. However, courts must also recognise that they are not always capable of proof by direct documentary evidence, nor must they always subscribe to secular logic."

It added that the Supreme Court judgment elucidates that faith and belief lie within the personal realm of the believer, and their genuineness cannot be put to the test of scriptural interpretation or rational scrutiny.

"The test should be of genuineness and not rationality," it said.

It added that consistency and continuity of faith and belief are relevant factors when proprietary rights are judged.

"If a denomination has consistently and continuously believed in the existence of a particular fact within the spiritual realm, and such an assertion is corroborated by other relevant material on record, then courts must not decide the matter by comparing the strength of competing faiths, but must assess the genuineness of the belief," the court said.

Official Gazettes Can Be Considered For Historical Background 

The court said that principle number six from the Ayodhya verdict makes it clear the position of evidentiary value of Official Gazettes or Gazetteers by the Court. 

"The judgment makes clear the position that Official Gazettes or Gazetteers, though not inadmissible or irrelevant, may be considered by the Court to provide historical background and may also possess corroborative value where supported by other material; however, they cannot be treated as conclusive proof of title, religious character, legal entitlement, or disputed historical fact," it said.

The court added that their contents must be scrupulously tested against the totality of the record, including contemporaneous documents, official records, archaeological material, conduct of parties, and other surrounding circumstances. 

Government Records Not Conclusive To Decide Such Cases

Principle number seven says that the official descriptions, administrative nomenclature, government correspondence and contemporaneous official records may have material evidentiary value where they consistently identify a disputed site by reference to its religious or historical association. Such material may not, by itself, conclude title or final legal character, but it can substantially corroborate other documentary, historical, archaeological and worship-related evidence. 

Waqf By User Not Applicable Here

Principle number eight is about the principle of Waqf by the user, the principle which emanates from the Ayodhya Judgement is that the evidentiary burden. 

Ayodhya thus demonstrates that internal religious doctrines, whether invoked by the Hindu side in the form of juristic personality of the land itself, or by the Muslim side in the form of waqf by user over the entire disputed property, cannot be accepted in a manner that automatically destroys the established religious rights of the other community. 

Evidentiary Value Of ASI Report

Principle nine is about the ASI report. The court noted that the Supreme Court did not appreciate the approach of the High Court in not evaluating the ASI report in the Ram Janmabhoomi case.

"Though it is necessary to bear in mind the criticism levelled against its methodology and findings. The Court held that by virtue of Order 26 Rule 10(2), the report and the evidence taken by the Commissioner - shall be evidence in the suit - and shall form part of the record," the high court said.

However, the court clarified that such expert opinion must be sieved and evaluated by the Court and cannot be treated as conclusive in and of itself. "The further principle through which modern courts have to assess a dispute before them is that archaeology, which includes multiple disciplines and trans disciplinary approaches, is the strength of the report prepared by such experts and cannot be labelled as a weak form of evidence," the high court said.

It added that the assessment of findings has to be done by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities rather than absolute truth. 

"Preponderance of probability is to be considered an acceptable standard. Findings of forceful demolition can be inferential where the building in dispute did not have its own foundation, but was raised on existing walls, or where the floor was sitting just over the floor of the earlier building," the high court said.

The Court must read the report as a whole, assess its findings contextually, consider objections realistically, and determine whether the conclusions drawn are supported by the material on record, it reasoned.

High Probative Value Of Archaeological Findings 

Another principle which has been gathered from the Ayodhya judgment is that when the dispute concerns religious character, historical use, continuity of worship, or competing claims over a protected or disputed religious site, archaeological findings of religious motifs, art, instruments, sculptures, inscriptions and architectural members demonstrating the pre-existing structure of a particular religion may be of high probative value. 

It said that this enables the Courts to apply the other principles in determining subsisting rights and consistency of belief.

Difference From Ayodhya Issue

The high court noted that in the present case, it is not deciding the title of the property of the disputed area. It pointed out that most of the arguments of the Muslim side and interveners were as if the Hindu side were claiming title over the disputed area. 

"The judgment in the Ayodhya case arose out of a civil suit which was dealing with the claim of a title over the disputed area. In the present case, as we consider that we have to determine the character of the disputed area based on historical literature, architectural features, ASI survey reports, etc," the Court said. 

It added that for determining the character of the disputed area, it has to keep in mind the above 10 principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the Ayodhya case.

While passing this historic verdict, the court also said that it is a constitutional duty of the govt not only to protect and maintain such sites but even to sanction funds for providing basic amenities to pilgrims, proper arrangements for shelter places, maintenance of law and order and the preservation of the purity and pristine character of the deity.

The court found evidence of uninterrupted Hindu worship at Bhojshala, recognised the site's historical identity as a Sanskrit learning centre associated with Raja Bhoj and a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, and reaffirmed ASI's authority over its preservation and management.

The verdict now establishes exclusive worship rights to Hindus in the temple while suggesting that the government shall provide an alternate site to Muslims to offer Namaz. The court today set aside the arrangement established by the ASI order of 2003, where Hindus were allowed to worship on Tuesday and Muslims to offer Namaz on Fridays.