The other side disputes the alleged disuse of the mosque for prayers prior to December 1949.5.
The stand of the Uttar Pradesh Government in the suits was that the place was used as a mosque till1949.6.
At the centre of the RJB-BM dispute is the demand voiced by Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and itsallied organisations for the restoration of a site said to be the birthplace of Sri Ram in Ayodhya.7.
Till 6-12- 1992 this site was occupied by the structure erected in 1528 by 'Mir Baqi' who claimed tohave built it on orders of the first Mughal Emperor Babar. This structure has been described in theold government records as Masjid Janmasthan. It is now commonly referred to as Ram Janma Bhumi-Babri Masjid.8.
The VHP and its allied organisations base their demand on the assertion that this site is thebirthplace of Sri Ram and a Hindu temple commemorating this site stood here till it was destroyed onBabar's command and a Masjid was erected in its place. The demand of the VHP has found support from the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP).9.
The construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site, after removal or relocation of the existingstructure, was a major plank in BJP's campaign during elections held in 1989 and 1991.10.
Other major political parties, however, had generally opposed this demand and had taken the standthat while a temple should be built, the issues in dispute should be resolved either by negotiations orby orders of the Court.11.
During the negotiations aimed at finding an amicable solution to the dispute, one issue which came tothe fore was whether a Hindu temple had existed on the site occupied by the disputed structure andwhether it was demolished on Babar's orders for the construction of the Masjid. It was stated onbehalf of the Muslim organisations, as well as by certain eminent historians, that there was noevidence in favour of either of these two assertions. It was also stated by certain Muslim leaders that if these assertions were proved, the Muslims would voluntarily handover the disputed shrine to theHindus. Naturally, this became the central issue in the negotiations between the VHP and AIBMAC.12.
It is tragic and ironical that the Ram Chabutra and Kaushalya Rasoi, which continued as places of worship during periods of Muslim and British rule have disappeared along with the RJB-BMstructure at the hands of people professing to be 'devotees' of Lord Ram.
HOW THE ACT IS CHALLENGED AS OPPOSED TO SECULARISM:-
The argument is that the Act read as a whole is anti-secular being slanted in favour of the Hinducommunity and against the Muslim minority since it seeks to perpetuate demolition of the mosquewhich stood on the disputed site instead of providing for the logical just action of rebuilding it,appropriate in the circumstances.2.
It is urged that Section 4(3) provides for abatement of all pending suits and legal proceedingsdepriving the Muslim community of its defences including that of adverse possession for over 400years since 1528 AD when the mosque was constructed on that site by Mir Baqi, without providingfor an alternate dispute- resolution mechanism, and thereby it deprives the Muslim community of thejudicial remedy to which it is entitled in the constitutional scheme under the rule of law.3.
It is urged that the Special Reference under Section 143(1) of the Constitution to this Court by thePresident of India is not of the core question, the answer to which would automatically resolve thedispute but only of a vague and hypothetical issue, the answer to which would not help in theresolution of the dispute as a legal issue.4.
It is also urged that Section 6 enables transfer of the acquired property including the disputed area toany authority, body or trust by the Central Government without reference to the real title over thedisputed site.5.
It is further contended that Section 7 perpetuates the mischief of the demolition of the mosque bydirecting maintenance of the status quo as on 7-1-1993 which enables the Hindus to exercise the