Ayodhya Act 1993: When Congress Passed Law For Construction of Ram Mandir And BJP Opposed it
It was the Congress that brought a law called the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 for 'the Hindutva cause'.
New Delhi, October 30: Following the Supreme Court order to list the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title suit in January 2019 for fixing the date of hearing, proponents of Ram Mandir reiterated their demand for an ordinance for construction of the temple at the disputed land in Ayodhya. While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) often accuse the Congress of not openly supporting the construction of Ram Mandir, alleging minority appeasement, it was the grand old party that brought a law called the Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 for 'the Hindutva cause'.
A month after the Babri Masjid was demolished in December 1993, then Congress government, led by Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao, introduced a Bill in Parliament. The Bill was tabled by then Union Home Minister SB Chavan. "It is necessary to maintain communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India," Chavan said while tabling the Bill. The Bill was passed in the same year, and Ayodhya Act came into effect. Notably, the BJP vehemently opposed the Congress government's move. Ram Mandir Via Ordinance or Law: Will Modi Government Adopt Somnath Route For Ayodhya?
The Ayodhya Act was brought days after then Shankar Dayal Sharma promulgated the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance to pave the way for construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya. Under the Ayodhya Act, the central government acquired 60.70-acre land surrounding the Babri Masjid and planned to build "a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library, museum and other suitable facilities" in Ayodhya. Section 7 (2) of the Ayodhya Act virtually barred the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)-controlled Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas from acquiring any portion of the disputed land.
Since the Congress government faced opposition from the BJP as well as Muslim bodies on Ayodhya Act, it moved the Supreme Court through a Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution, and asked whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed before the construction of the Babri Masjid. While the apex court gave its response to various sections of the Act, it did not answer the most crucial question. A five-judge bench upheld the act and supported the idea of building a Ram Mandir, a mosque, a library and other amenities on the acquired land.
The Supreme Court, however, struck down Section 4(3) of the Ayodhya Act which provided for abatement of all legal proceedings related to the matter before any court. It revived the original title dispute on Ayodhya land. The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi issue became a real estate dispute and a matter of sub-judice as the apex court refused to stay legal proceedings. Since, during the pendency of the title-dispute, no construction activity can take place at the disputed land, the central government could never implement the Ayodhya Act.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Oct 30, 2018 04:29 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).