Judgment Hari Nath Tilhari, J. 1. This petition has been filed by Hindu Adhivakta sangh for issuance and grant of the following reliefs : (a) Writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to create hurdles and impediments or obstructions in the performances of Darshan, pooja, Aarti and Bhog etc. of Shri Ramji Virajman at Ram janam Bhumi as well as of the place of birth of Shri Ram Ji i. e. Janam Bhumi at Ramkot, Ayodhya by Hindus. (b) Writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the pujaris to perform Pooja. Aarti and Bhog etc. of shri Ram Lala Virajam (the deity) at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi in ramkot at Ayodhya in District Faizabad and also to restrain them from creating hurdles and impediments and obstructions in the performance of necessary rituals by the pujaristand structure through the Pujaris. (c) Writ of mandamus be issued to opposite-party to preserve and protect the material of historical importance found in the debris of demolished structure at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi, Ayodhya. The petitioner has prayed for such further reliefs as this Court may deem fit. 2. The petitioner-claims to be a registered association of Hindu activists with its main object to preserve and protect the rights and interests of Hindus and to struggle and fight in accordance with for protection and preservation of legal and constitutional rights of Hidus as well as to protect and preserve Hindus Shrines and to introduce reforms in hindu society as another object and legitimate goal including its further object to fight against the anti-national and anti-constitutional anti-social activities and against all persons engaged therein or interested in creating anti-social activities and atmosphere. 3. The petitioner has asserted in this writ petition that the petitioners association between and has got faith in the Majesty of Lord shri Rama. Lord Shri Krishna and Lord Shri Shiva etc. and has got faith and belief in Vadas,, Shastras, Smritis, Puranas and in the cultural heritage of this country and as all Hindus do as well. 4. The petitioner in the writ petition has further alleged that once upon a time at the birth place of Lord Shri Ram, namely Janam Bhumi (Ram Janam Bhumi Sthan in Ramkot at Ayodhya District Faizabad there existed a glorious temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram with allied deities. 4. The petitioner in the writ petition has further alleged that once upon a time at the birth place of Lord Shri Ram, namely Janam Bhumi (Ram Janam Bhumi Sthan in Ramkot at Ayodhya District Faizabad there existed a glorious temple of Bhagwan Shri Ram with allied deities. The petitioner has asserted that in 1528 a Mughal invader Babar, through his commander Mir Baki tried to demolish the said temple and also tried to convert the said temple into mosque. But due to great resentment of hindu public, he could not fulfill his mission of converting the structure of temple into mosque. The petitioner has alleged that from to time there has been good number of fights between Hindus and Muslims in connection with the construction and land on which it existed i. e. land in dispute i. e. Shri Ram Janam Bhumi. Inspire of the best efforts to resolve the matter between the Hindus and Muslims, the same could not be resolved till the day of independence and thereafter and friction was created between the two communities. The petitioners case is that there were Kasautes pillar, with engraving of Hindu Gods and Goddess thereon, of the temple, everywhere used them and in three doms structure were constructed by the Britishers on the said pillars as well as to give the same shape of the mosque to the three domes were constructed. The petitioners submit in the writ petitioners that the Hindus have all all along been in use and occupation of disputed construction and Shri Ram Janam Bhumi and building existing thereon and have been offering Puja etc. and doing all that was necessary to perform Puja of Shri Ramji. 5. The petitioner further averred in the writ petition that some trouble arose in 1949 as well and the Muslims tried to disturb the Hindus rights of Darshan, Puja and Archana etc. This resulted in the filling of a suit by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of Lord Rama impleading some muslims and other officers, in which U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs had applied for being impleaded and was impleaded. 6. The petitioner has, further averred that on 16-1-1950, the trial court in Faizabad granted an order of temporary injunction and ordered restraining the defendants of the suit from interferring as well as from causing obstruction in the Puja, Archana etc. 6. The petitioner has, further averred that on 16-1-1950, the trial court in Faizabad granted an order of temporary injunction and ordered restraining the defendants of the suit from interferring as well as from causing obstruction in the Puja, Archana etc. of Bhagwan Shri Ram Lala ji Virajman at Janam Bhumi Ayodhya and that other was modified on 19-1-1950 by order dated 19-1-1950 and it was provided that Puja etc. will not be disturbed and will go as it is. An appeal from the said order was filed in this court as first Appeal No.164 of 1951 Zahoor Ahmad V/s. Gopal singh Visharad and the Division Bench of this Court affirmed the order of injunction passed by trial court. The order dated 16-1-1950 was modified by order dated 19-1-1950. The order reads as under. "the parties are hereby restrained by means of temporary injunction to restrain from removing the idols in question from the site in dispute and from interferring with Puja etc. as at present is carried on. The order dated 16-1-1950 stands modified. " 7. The Division Bench of this court having heard the arguments of the appellants, observed as under : "the learned Civil Judge was of the opinion that the balance of convenience was in granting injunction, he took the view that if the idols were removed one of the reliefs sought for in the suit namely perpetual injunction could not be granted even if the suit was decided in plaintiffs favour and then we think he was clearly right. " The Division Bench further observed :- "notwithstanding, the error made by the learned Judge in taking into account the certified copy of affidavit filed after arguments have been concluded, we are not able to say that this order is one, which clearly ought not to have been made. We have considered it extremely desirable that the suit should be disposed of at once and, we, accordingly direct that the record of proceeding be sent back to lower court forthwith with direction to Civil Judge to expedite the hearing". 8. The Petitioners case is that thus, the order passed by the Civil judge, Faizabad, was confirmed by this Court and it was directed that deity shall not be removed and that no interference with the Puja, Archana etc. "will be made, and was allowed to continue it as at present carried on. 8. The Petitioners case is that thus, the order passed by the Civil judge, Faizabad, was confirmed by this Court and it was directed that deity shall not be removed and that no interference with the Puja, Archana etc. "will be made, and was allowed to continue it as at present carried on. The petitioner in this writ petition has further asserted that on the application of a Hindu devotee vide order dated 1-2-1986 contained in annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the District Judge, Faizabad, it has ordered that the locks placed on the building in dispute at Ram Janam Bhumi be removed as it was held and declared that a Hindu have the right to have darshan and Puja, etc. of Shri Ram Lalaji Virajman in that building i. e. Hindu shrine at Ram Janam Bhumi at Ayodhya. 9. The petitioner has further very clearly averred that from the order contained in annexure-2 to the present writ petition, Writ Petition No.746 of 1986 was filled by one Mohd. Hashim and Writ Petition No.3106 of 1986 was filled by U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs in this Court and both the writ petitions are still pending and, further, that the order passed by the District Judge Faizabad, dated 1-2-1986 continues to be operative and its operation has not been stayed nor has the same been set aside or cancelled. 10. According to the petitioners case, it is crystal clear that Hindus in general, have a right to have Darshan, Puja and Aarti etc. of Shri Ram lala Ji and the opposite-parties have no right to, create any hurdles or or obstruction in the exercise of petitioners as well as of Hindus fundamental right of religion and faith and their right to perform Puja and have darshan of Shri Ram Lala Ji in Ram Janam Bhumi in general the opposite-parties are not entitled to restrain or depaive Hindus of their right to have Darshan and Puja. 11. The petitioner has stated that the people in general among hindus always entertained and carried a will of renovation of old construction of the temple at Shri Ram Janam Bhumi and funds at different levels were raised and an organisation was formed as Vishwa Hindu parishad on the birthday of Lord Shri Krishan i. e. on Janmasthami day i. e.29-8-1984. 12. 12. The petitioner has also averred that in 1991 the general elections were held and the peoples will for reconstruction of the temple at the birth place of Shri Ram in Ayodhya, was manifested and reflected through votes resulting in the victory of Bhartiya Janata Party. Those elections were a clear mandate to construct Shri Ram Temple as declared in election manifesto. The petitioner has further averred that Suit No.12 of 1961 filed by U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, had been transferred to this court for being tried by a Full Bench or Special Bench of this Court in pursuance of transfer order dated 10-7-1989. 13. On October 10, 1991, according to the petitioners case, some land adjoining the main land, was acquired and thereafter, Kar Sewa started over this land which was continued upto July, 1992 but on the intervention of Shri Narsimha Rao, the Prime Minister of India, to resolve the dispute the Kar Sewa suspended for four months but inspite of his best efforts the dispute could not be resolved and thereafter dharam sansad declared that with effect from 6-12-1992 Kar Sewa would be resumed. The petitioner further stated that there was no declaration or movement to start Kar Sewa from Sanctum sanctorum. 14. The petitioner further averred that a writ petition was filed challenging the acquisition of the land in this Court and the hearing was concluded on 4-11-1992 aad the judgment there was delivered on 11-19-1992. The petitioners case is that during the period between 4-12-1992 in a contempt petition, pending before the Hon ble Supreme court for the alleged violation of interim orders passed in land acquisition case, the Kar Sewa in pursuance of the Supreme Courts direction, could only he performed in a symbolic manner and no construction activity was permitted. The Supreme Courts direction was telecast every day on radio and T. V. that symbolic Kar Sewa will be performed. 15. The petitioner has further alleged that when Kar Sewa was to be performed, the people gathered in lacs from different parts of the country at Ayodhya for Kar Sewa and then it became out of control. The Supreme Courts direction was telecast every day on radio and T. V. that symbolic Kar Sewa will be performed. 15. The petitioner has further alleged that when Kar Sewa was to be performed, the people gathered in lacs from different parts of the country at Ayodhya for Kar Sewa and then it became out of control. From Kar sewa on that day and, as a result of anguish and as a result of frustration the unfortunate episode resulting in the demolition of the old structure did take place though the same was neither intended or conceived nor planned by Hindus. 16. The petitioners case is that the petitioners as well as Hindus in general have got the right of Darshan and Puja etc. The petitioners have submitted in the petition that there is no doubt that State has the duty of maintaining law and order as well as has got power of regulating the entry of persons in the temple but it cannot deny the right of visiting the place of having Darshan and Puja etc. It is the duty of every one that everyone should obey law and respect the order issued by the court including the interim orders granted and issued by the courts and to see that the said orders are not rendered negatory nor are the citizen deprived of their fundamental and legal rights. 17. The petitioners case is that the opposite-parties are acting in violation of the order of the court issued from time to time as well as the provision of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner averred that the State has not take any action in regard to the obligation to collect and preserve the material of building which existed till 5-12-1992 and unfortunately stood demolished on 6-12-1992, since then and to keep the same safe for being looked and considered to determine the nature of building whether the same was a temple or mosque. 18. The petitioners alleged that the acts of the opposite-parties in creating obstruction and hinderance in the petitioners as well as in the general Hindu public right to perform Darshan, Puja and also by creating of hinderance in the Hindus exercising their fundamental right and the fundamental rights of Hindus is being denied. 18. The petitioners alleged that the acts of the opposite-parties in creating obstruction and hinderance in the petitioners as well as in the general Hindu public right to perform Darshan, Puja and also by creating of hinderance in the Hindus exercising their fundamental right and the fundamental rights of Hindus is being denied. So, the petitioner has prayed for the reliefs mentioned above being granted by public interest litigation on behalf of Hindu public and for the benefits of Hindus. 19. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an application for interim relief as well which are to be effect that the opposite-parties be directed not to create any hurdles, impediments or Darshan and puja etc. as well as allow the petitioners and Hindus to perform Puja, aarti etc. every day according to the Hindu rites and customs. 20. A second petition for the same or similar reliefs has been filed by Akhil Bhartiya Nehru Brigade Uttar Pradesh through its president and by Sri Ganga Singh, State President of Nehru Brigade against Union of india, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Home Secretary Uttar Pradesh, government and District Magistrate, Faizabad. 21. The petitioner No.1 in this second writ petition has claimed himself to be social organisation interested in protecting the rights of indian citizens as enshrined in Constitution of India. The petitioner, in this writ petition has asserted that the petition is being preferred seeking mandamus comanding opposite parties to remove restriction imposed on darshan and worship etc. as well as to allow people having faith in Hindu religion to have darshan etc. The petitioner of this petition has averred that the restriction imposed on darshan and worship of Shri Ram Lala Ji tentamount to snatching away the fundamental rights of Indians having faith in Hindu religion as enshrined under Articles 25 and 26 of the constitution of India. The petitioner of this petition avers that the locks of the Janam Bhumi were opened under the courts order dated 1-2-1986, people were allowed to have Darshan and worship but since 6-12-1992, the petitioner and the people in general have been obstructed and deprived on account of the opposite-parties act in the enjoyment and exercise of their fundamental right of faith and religion by not allowing Hindus to perform Puja and worship of Shri Ram Lala Ji at Ram Janam Bhumi at Ayodhya. 22. 22. The third writ has been filed and argued by a citizen Maharshi avadhesh. This petition is by a person not trained in law and in the matter of drafting. It was a jumbled one as if on one hand it appears to some action for proceeding against someone for contempt of court and then as it appears on the other hand it has been moved for the grant of writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to allow Darshan Puja and archna etc. , being performed by Hindus and the devotee of Bhagwan Shri ram Chandra as well as to dedicated social worker. 23. Keeping place with the provisions of Articles 25 of the Constitution and the order dated 1-2-1986 he has prayed the first two reliefs as others have done and further prayed that Pujari of Sheshavtar Temple be directed to be allowed to perform Puja etc. and people be allowed to have Darshan therein as well. The petitioner in this writ petition apart from similar on the allegations has alleged that the Pujari of Sheshavtar bhagvan has been kept without offering Puja, Aarti and Archana etc. on account of the Central Police Forces under orders of opposite parties. The petitioner complains of the violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of himself and other Hindus. 24. He has also prayed that opposite parties be directed to define secularism, minority and majority in order to save Hindu religion and hindu Temple from being destroyed or thrashed by clubbing these three expressions together as Hindu in general are being denied of their rights including right of religion and faith. 25. The allegations of the petition and the facts the narration of the facts are almost identical as in the petition of Vishwa Hindu Adhivakta sangh. 25. The allegations of the petition and the facts the narration of the facts are almost identical as in the petition of Vishwa Hindu Adhivakta sangh. As the petition was combined as one under Article 226 of Constitution as well as for taking contempt of court proceedings, we asked petitioner to first clarify whether he presses his petition as a petition for contempt of court of as the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of mandamus and other relief as the two cannot be jumbled into one, the petitioner Shri Maharishi Avadesh with all submissiveness and sense of respect for the court expressed in writing that he does not want to press this petition as a contempt petition and he stated. "yah YAACHIKA BATAUR WRIT YAACHIKA KE SAMJHI jaai. AWMAANNAA PRAKRIYAA KE ANTARGAT isey NAHI KIYA GAYA HAI". Thus, he had not pressed his case for the alleged contempt pressed the petition as one under Article 226 of the Constitution and the consideracibn thereof is confined only as a petition under Article 226 and is not as one under contempt of court and under Article 215 of the Constitution. The petitioner was heard. As these three petitions involve common question of law, the petitions are consolidated and are heard and being decided by one common judgment together making the writ petition filed by Vishwa hindu Adhivakta Sangh as leading case. 26. Notice of all these petitions was served on Senior Standing counsel for the State of U. P. and other State authorities. 27. A short Counter Affidavit has been Filed on behalf of Uttar pradesh and the opposite parties i. e. , District Magistrate etc. i. e. opposite parties 1 to 3 on 26-12-1992 and a further affidavit in compliance of courts order dated 26-12-1992 has been filed on 28-12-1992. The petitioner has filled rejoinder affidavit to short counter affidavit. 28. In course of hearing applications were made one by U. P. Sunni central Board of Waqf Shri Mohd. Hashim for impleadment as a party and other applications for impleadment by U. P. Muslim Advocates Forum and Shri Tayyab Khan. The petitioner has filled rejoinder affidavit to short counter affidavit. 28. In course of hearing applications were made one by U. P. Sunni central Board of Waqf Shri Mohd. Hashim for impleadment as a party and other applications for impleadment by U. P. Muslim Advocates Forum and Shri Tayyab Khan. By separate orders passed on the applications the applicants have been allowed to be heard as interveners under Chapter xxii Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court 1952 which read as under ; "at the hearing of the application any person who desires to heard in opposition to the application and appears to the court to be a proper person to be heard may be heard notwithstanding that he has not been served with notice under Rule 2. " 28. U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf has filed an affidavit in opposition as an objection in the form of affidavit to the interim relief application moved by the petitioner along with the writ petition. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner has claimed interim relief in the same terms and on same facts as stated in the writ petition and the application or interim relief is based on the allegation made in the writ petition. The state of U. P. in its short counter affidavit dated 24-12-1992 has stated that the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable and according to the information received from the district administration, Faizabad strict prohibitory order under Sec.144 Cr. P. C. are in force around the disputed place and only five persons as enumerated in Paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit are permitted to go to the disputed place out of whom three can a time perform puja of idols kept at the disputed place. The five persons who have been permitted to go to the disputed place in connection with the performance of Puja are : Acharya Satendra Das, Subhash chandra Tripathi, Santosh Kumar Tewari, Vinay Kumar Pandey and Sunil das. According to the States case the prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr. P. C. are in force in the disputed place and entry of persons except as mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the affidavit is prohibited. According to the States case the prohibitory orders under Section 144 Cr. P. C. are in force in the disputed place and entry of persons except as mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the affidavit is prohibited. On 26-12-1992 during the course of hearing we enquired from the learned chief Standing Counsel to indicate the actual situation in Ayodhya and particularly in the area known as Ramkot whether the curfew operates or not and if it is operating the timings of curfew and its relaxation, if any should be indicated. The learned Chief Standing Counsel was further directed to State on affidavit if curfew was in operation or not as well as its timings. In pursuance of our order dated 26-12-1992 the opposite-party no.1 filed an affidavit sworn by Shri K. K. Bakshi, Principal Secretary to the Government of U. P. Home Department, Civil Secretariate, lucknow. In Paragraph 3 of the affidavit of Shri K. K. Bakshi it has been stated that District Magistrate has with due haste conveyed relevant information vide his letter dated 27-12-1992 and according to Paragraph 4 it has been stated that the said letter informs that so far as Mohalla ramkot in Ayodhya is concerned it continues to remain under complete curfew from 6-12-1992 and no relaxation has been made in the said order in respect of the area lying in the said mohalla Ramkot and thus, according to the affidavit of the State entire area lying in Ramkot in Ayodhya is under twenty four hours curfew since 6-12-1992 as per affidavit dated 28-12-1992. The affidavit further states just contradictory to what has been stated in earlier paragraph. Paragraph-6 of the affidavit of Shri K. K. Bakshi reads as under : "that in respect of the area indicated in Paragraph 1 of the letter of the District Magistrate the District Magistrate informed relaxation is made after 23-12-1992 between 9 a. m. to 5 p. m. to enable the general public for the performance of their normal functions and duties with the condition that during this period of relaxation persons cannot collect or carry on or raise provocative slogans. However, during this period the persons can visit such temples for Darshan which are situated in that area. " In Paragraph-7 of the affidavit it has been deposed : "that the prohibitory order passed by District Magistrate Faizabad on 6-12-1992 under Sec.144 Cr. However, during this period the persons can visit such temples for Darshan which are situated in that area. " In Paragraph-7 of the affidavit it has been deposed : "that the prohibitory order passed by District Magistrate Faizabad on 6-12-1992 under Sec.144 Cr. P. C. , 1973 continues in ayodhya with such modifications and relaxations as are permitted by the District Magistrate, Faizabad in subsequent orders which are all filed as Annexures accompaying the letter dated 27-12-1992 of District Magistrate as Annexures A-3 to A-13. It is again reiterated that so far as mohalla Ramkot is concerned there has been no relaxation in curfew after 6-12-1992 as would be evident from the perusal of the District Magistrates letter dated 27-12-1992". 29. The position as emerges from this affidavit that so far as mohalla ramkot where Ram Janam Bhumi is situated in Ayodhya there is no relaxation in curfew and the curfew prevails for twenty four hours and in other areas of Ayodhya other than Ramkot there is some relaxation in curfew as per affidavit dated 28-12-1992. The letter of the District magistrate shows that while five Pujaris have been granted permission to go inside the disputed place where Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala is Virajman but out of five only three can perform Puja at a time. The reason for the same is not clear why out of five only three can perform the Puja. Any way, this itself emerges from the affidavit filed by and on behalf of opposite-parties 1 to 4. These affidavits are being read in connection with all the three writ petitions involving common subject matter. 30. The affidavit shown by Mohammad Ismail on behalf of U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf dated December 23, 1992 along with the application for impleadment and Mohd. Ismails affidavit dated 25th december, 1992 filed as an objection by way of affidavit for interim relief per se shows that according to the interveners-Muslim Waqfs Board, the writ petition is not maintainable. According to the applicant-Waqf board, the writ petition is to seek tacit and implied recognition of the alleged illegal and wrongful act and the alleged contempts of Hon ble supreme Court committed on 6-12-1992 and thereafter by way of demolition and encroachment. According to the applicant-Waqf board, the writ petition is to seek tacit and implied recognition of the alleged illegal and wrongful act and the alleged contempts of Hon ble supreme Court committed on 6-12-1992 and thereafter by way of demolition and encroachment. According to interveners, then question of reconstruction of the disputed building, alleged to be Babari Masjid which had been demolished according to the Waqf Board illegally on 6-12-1992, is raising active consideration and the Supreme Court and Government of India had directed to submit the plan of the reconstruction. The board contention appears to be vide Paragraph 4 of the affidavit the writ petition has been filed to circumvent the direction of Hon ble Supreme court and proceedings before Supreme Court as it relates to same place on which the site the reconstruction of mosque is alleged by the deponent Mohammad Ismail, is to take place. The case of intervener vide Paragraph 5 appears to be that the structure in dispute was mosque known as Babari Masjid. It is alleged in Paragraph 5 that the admitted case of the State Government it is of that the structure in dispute was a mosque and was in use of Muslim for worship in support of this application in paragraph 5, the interveners have referred to Paragraph 12 and 13 of the written statement verified and signed by J. N, Ogra, the then district Magistrate, Faizabad on behalf of State of Uttar Pradesh in Suit no.2 of 1950 pending before the Full Bench. The alleged admission has been quoted in the affidavit by the deponent Mohd. Ismail reads as under :- Para 12-The property in suit is known as Babari mosque and it has for a long time been in use as a mosque for the purpose of worship by Muslims. It has not been in use as a temple of shri Ram Chandraji. " "para ,13- That on the night of 22/23th December, 1949, the idols of Shri Ram Chandraji were surreptitiously and wrongfully put inside" 31 On the above basis, the interveners case is that an interim order may not be granted to provide an opportunity, to the State of Uttar pradesh to resile from the above mentioned admissions. This is what has been contained in Paragraph 6. This is what has been contained in Paragraph 6. In Paragraph 7 it is stated as under :- "para 7-That the interim orders regarding the Puja and Darshan of the Civil Courts were in respect of the idols that placed in the manner mentioned above. Those were removed by the attackers of Babari Masjid on 6-12-1992, hence all interim orders in respect of Puja and Darshan become infructuous. " 32. Thus it appears the case of the interveners that prior to 6-12-1992 idols of Shri Ram Chandraji were existing and were continuing to be there inside the old construction or building in dispute on Ram janam Bhoomi in Mohalla Ramkot. The case of the Board vide the affidavit dated 25-12-1992 is that when the occurrence did take place on 6-12-1992 resulting in demolition of the building or disputed construction which the applicant Board referred as Babari Masjid is to demolish or was demolished those idols have been removed and all the interim orders passed earlier did not become available to Ram Lallaji even if subsequently placed therein or after 6-12-1992 i. e. after the occurrence of demolition again and the interim orders becomes infructuous. The case of Board appears to be that after placement of the idols at the place where they were on or after 6-12-1992 after the demolition of the building there in violation of interim directions of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 15th November, 1990 and the undertaking of the State Government before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the orders of status-quo and so the placement of idols according to Board was unauthorised encroachment upon the land. The Board case in Paragraph 8 is that in this view of the matter, the interim direction cannot be given, by this Hon ble court in the present writ petition to protect the illegality in exercise of writ jurisdiction. " The writ jurisdiction is an exercise in equity and the powers cannot be exercised in favour of law breakers. According to the allegations made in the affidavit dated 25-12-1992 made by the board it alleged in Para 9 in the following words : "the writ petition is only directed to secure illegal recognition and tacit approval of illegality and the contempt of Hon ble supreme Court committed on 6th December, 1992 and thereafter by demolition of Babari Mosque and by making encroachment upon the land in question. " 33. We have heard Sri Hari Shanker Jain (Advocate ). The Secretary of Vishwa Hindu Adhivakta Sangh in writ petition of Vishwa Hindu adhivakta Sangh as wall as Sri Ganga Singh (Advocate) and President of Akhil Bhartiya Nehru Brigade, Uttar Pradesh in the Writ petition filed by Akhil Bhartiya Nehru Brigade and petitioner Shri Maharshi avadhesh in writ petition filed by him and the learned Advocate General representing the State as well as Dr. Ashok Nigam, Senior Standing counsel, Central Government who had as well as assisted the learned advocate General. 34. We have heard Shri Abdul Mannan, learned Counsel for the interveners i. e. U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and Mohd. Hashim we have also heard Shri Qamer Ahmad, learned Counsel for the interveners, namely, U. P. Muslims Advocate Forum and Tayyab AH Khan on whose behalf the application has been moved by Shri Qamer Ahmad. The hearing of the writ petition commenced on 26-12-1992 and it continued up till the eve of 29-12-1992. 35. Shri Hari Shanker Jain after having taken us to the background of the facts of the case narrated earlier in the writ petition and referred to in this judgment earlier as well a having been made a reference to orders dated 16-10-1950 as modified order dated 19-1-1950 by the Civil judge, Faizabad and the orders passed by a Division Bench consisting of Hon ble Mr. Justice O. H. Mathur i. e. Hon ble Chief Justice and Hon ble Mr. Justice Raghuber Dayal in first appeal from Order No.154/1951 of Shri Zahoor Ahmad and others V/s. Gopal Singh Visharadh, dated 25-4-1955 and he also having referred to order dated 1-2-1986 passed by the then District Judge, Faizabad (Shri K. N. Pandey) urged that in view of the injunction order passed by the Civil Judge and as affirmed by this Court in F. A. F.154 of 1951 and the order dated 1-2-1986 passed by the District Judge Faizabad submitted and urged the parties were restrained from removing the idols from the site in dispute as well as from interfering with the Pooja etc. as carried on of the idols of Shri Sita ram Chandraji and other deities and that the Respondents the Civil appeal No.8 of 1986, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the District magistrate and S. S. P. Faizabad were directed to open the locks of gates O and P forthwith. as carried on of the idols of Shri Sita ram Chandraji and other deities and that the Respondents the Civil appeal No.8 of 1986, namely, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the District magistrate and S. S. P. Faizabad were directed to open the locks of gates O and P forthwith. They were further directed not to impose any restriction or hurdless in the Darshan and Pooja by the applicants and other members of the Hindu-communities in general. Shri Jain further submitted, no doubt the order further provided that respondents in the appeal i. e. State of U. P. and the District Magistrate and S. S. P. Faizabad were allowed to take independent decisions as regards the matter of controlling the law and order problems according to needs of the situation and were also empowered to regulate the entry of the pilgrims. Darshanarthies coming to have Darshan of the place of birth of Shri Ram chandraji and others Virajman on that land and under the roof of that old disputed building, which Shri Jain submitted was not really a mosque but a temple as engraving of the Hindu God and Godess contained in the pillars on which three domes of the old structure building was existing, Shri Jain submitted that according to him and his understanding of law on the subject, the building though alleged to be Babari Mosque could not be mosque. Shri Jain submitted thai offering of prayer before butts under Islam or under holy Quran is not permitted really offering of nawaz at the place or in a building containing the human figures or containing the picture of gods and goddesses or the deities or Buttas is against the injunctions of holy Quran and Islam. Islam refutes idols and its followers do not to pay homage to the Butts. Shri Ram further contended that according to information available from history and other material raider Babar through his Chief Tain Meer Baki attempted to get a mosque constructed after demolition of the structure of Hindus temple but on account of resentment of the public of Ayodhya and nearby areas he could not completely change the nature of that building into mosque and on account of the human engraving therein on the Pillar on which three domes are constructed the same could not be recognised as mosque for the worship of Alla-Tala and for offering the Namaz. According to Shri Jains contention, Islam is one of the great religions which teaches and preaches obedience to the will of Alla-Tala. Really, I did not preach and he did not ordain use of criminal force or invasion on others countries, nations or other civilisation in order to propagate Islam Shri Jain submitted, it really preached let one of Emam i. e. its followers follow own faith and religion and let others follow their own as it if will of God that those who believe in idol-worship also exist in the World. Had the God almighty i. e. Alla Tala not so willed the idol-Worshippers would not have been there. But ambitious of acquiring great Empire the invaders invaded country trampled the culture with use of sword and in madness of power in the name of Islam and performed acts which were in defiance and incomplete disobedience of ordains of holy Quran. As in the present case, Shri Jain submitted the Mughal invader Babar and his Chieftains demolished the Hindu temple of Shri Ram Chandraji to certain extent and on the pillars thereof which had engraving containing the human figure of Hindu Gods and Goddesses for nothing but for exhibiting the power of sword and acted in violation of real teaching and ordians of Quran, as such, Shri Jain contended that the building in dispute could not be said to be a mosque. He submitted that this was the preface of his arguments, this may be a question for decision by the Full Bench or by any of the competent authority or the Supreme Court as intervenere have stated in their affidavits but for the present, his case is that in view of the fact that the land in dispute situated in Mohalla Ramkot is the birth place of shri Ram Chandraji whom the petitioners and the Hindus adhere as God revealing himself in the human form and who set the great ideals of human life. He had been revered by all in India in all the corners of India by hindus as well as by Hindus living outside India. The Ram Janam bhoomi and the idols placed there are subject of faitb, worship, adherence upasana and Puja. He had been revered by all in India in all the corners of India by hindus as well as by Hindus living outside India. The Ram Janam bhoomi and the idols placed there are subject of faitb, worship, adherence upasana and Puja. Hindus have got a right of faith and of worshipping the idols of Shri Ram Chandraji placed as Janam Sthan as well as to offer homage to the land of his birth i. e. Ram Janam Bhoomi as the great memorial of Lord Shri Ram Chandraji. The Hindus have got the same reverence as they have got for the Samadhi Sthal of Mahatma Gandhi or other great men. He submitted that Ram is the soul and theme of the culture of India. Ram his life and conduct as individual and as man of people is the soul and theme of concept of welfare state known as Ram rajya of which the Father of Nation Mahatma Gandhi used to talk and conceive after the independence of India so Shri Jain contended that Shri ram is the part of cultural Heritage of India, the great Hindustan and was ever revered since time in memorial as a devine power and so he has become subject of faith. Worship of Ram has become a matter of faith and religion. That worship and prayer and adoration of all places connected with Lord Shri Ram lying in this country including in Mohalla ramkot, which name perse refer to nothing but the kota that is fort of rama who had for some time existed and would have existed in antiquity and that adoration and the paying of homage to the place concerned with shri Ram including at his Janam Sthan is a matter of faith and religion of hindus. Hindus in general on being deprived of their right of faith since 6-12-1992. Petitioner have filed this petition for enforcement of their right of faith and worship enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of india, particularly when it stands recognised by the orders of the Courts annexures-1 and 2, may be pending the final decision of the suits or pending further orders of this court on matters involved in suits. Petitioner have filed this petition for enforcement of their right of faith and worship enshrined in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of india, particularly when it stands recognised by the orders of the Courts annexures-1 and 2, may be pending the final decision of the suits or pending further orders of this court on matters involved in suits. Shri Jain submitted that the position as it existed prior to 6-12-1992, as regards worship Darshan, Poojan of Lord Shri Ram Chandraji and his idols at the place of his birth Janam Sthan, and that rights of the petitioner and hindus as recognised and as provided under order Annexures No.1 and 2 to the Writ Petition only are sought to be enforced by this Writ Petition. He submitted that in this petition, he is not concerned with any matter of dispute involved in the suits pending or writs pending and referred by opposite-parties or intervenes. He also submitted that all the relevant facts to the best of his knowledge have been placed in Writ Petition. There has been no concealment of any fact. The opposite-parties i. e. State Authorities were not allowing the petitioners and the Hindus, pilgrims the Darshan, Poojan etc. and so this petition in Public interest has been filed. 36. Shri Ganga Singh appearing in the writ petition filed by Akhil bhartiya Nehru Kendra and Shri Maharishi Awadhesh made their submissions in brief adopting the arguments of Shri Jain. Shri Ganga Singh submitted hindu who are sons of this soil and all those born on the land of hindustan and devoted to course of this Nation and in preservation of culture and cultural heritage of the country and devoted to greatest of great men produced by this Bharat mata or Hindustan Bhagwan Shri Ram chandra, whose life and conduct gave concept of Ram Rajya are entitled to seek protection of this Court to enforce their right of religion, faith and worship on Ram Janam Bhoomi and Ayodhya in reverence of Gods incarnation Shri Ramji and denial of such a fundamental right is obstruction in the exercise of fundamental right enshrined in Article 25 and in discharge of fundamental duty of the Hindus imposed by Article 51-A of Constitution so petitioners filed this petition. Shri Singh urged that state apart from being directed to remove obstruction in exercise of Hindus fundamental rights be directed to define "nationalism" "secularism", "minority" and majority as Hindus are worst effected by user of these terras in their own way by persons and parties on authority or power at various occasions according to their own objective. 37. The petition was opposed by learned Advocate General on behalf of interveners U. P. Sunni Central Board of Waqf and Mohd. Hashim while Shri Qamar Ahmad represented the other interveners. Their submissions briefly are that the petitioner is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as petitioners have alternative remedy of suit and they may file the suit as well as on the ground that petitioner has not referred to district Magistrates Sec.144 of the P. C. nor has challenged the said order in the writ petition so also petition should be dismissed. 38. It was further submitted on behalf of the interveners that the writ petition is not maintainable as the building in dispute has been demolished on 6.12.92 and has been illegally broken and encroached upon by some law breakers and mischievous elements and the writ jurisdiction as such should not be exercised and writ petition be dismissed. It has further been submitted that petitioners association is not entitled to maintain the suit as Corporation is not a citizen for the porpose of fundamental rights. 39. The personal rights of the petitioner are not affected and as corporation is not a citizen so not entitled to any fundamental rights as such the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief. It was further submitted by learned Advocate Genrenal as well as Shri Mannan and Shri qamar Ahmad, Counsel for the interveners that the petition involves the determination of question of fact and complicated question of fact which cannot be decided without recording any evidence and so this Court should dismiss the petition and elegate the petitioner to the remedy of suit. 40. The learned Advocate General submitted that it is a case between hindus and Muslims and Government is not much involved. The Central as well State Governments are secular and will follow the orders passed by the Court. No relief can be granted to the petitioner unless the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the District Authority under Section 144 Cr. The Central as well State Governments are secular and will follow the orders passed by the Court. No relief can be granted to the petitioner unless the petitioner had challenged the order passed by the District Authority under Section 144 Cr. P. C. The learned Advocate General submitted that petitioners had an alternative remedy. A referemce in course of arguments was also made to the provisions of Sections of the U. P. Act No.42 of 1991 by the learned Advocate General. It may be mentioned that learned Advocate general submitted that petitioner should approach in view of Sec.144 cr. P. C. and the provisions of Order under Sec.144 Cr. P. C. It is open to petitioners or any of the Hindus to approach the Magistrate who may consider to grant passes or permits. 41. The learned Advocate General invited my attention that District magistrates Press Note dated 27.12.1992 and submitted that the District administration is considering to allow the public to have Darshan of ram Lala in a manner regulated by it while the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that things are happening to the contrary. The petitioners in rejoinder-affidavit, submitted that without orders of the court a the petitioner may be deprived of any Darshan. 42 Shri Abdul Mannans relief on the allegation of para 5 of the affidavit dated 25-12-1992 Mohd. Ismail urged that State had admitted the property in suit to be mosque and the matter is in active consideration for construction of a mosque on the land of Ram Janam Bhoomi by the Hon ble Supreme Court and Government of India. No writ order or direction be issued which may provide an opportunity to State of Uttar pradesh to resile from said admission and so similar arguments were made by Shri Qamar Ahmad. He contended that the petition is not maintainable as public interest litigation and interim order dated 1-2-1986 is subject matter of challeng in writ petition. He neither submitted that there had been a mosque in Ramkot in Ayodhya though it was called disputed construction by petitioner, it has been demolished but the Muslims be allowed to offer Namaz there as it is their fundamental right. 43. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties. The provisions of the Places of Worship (special provisions) Act, 1991, in view of Sec.4 thereof does not apply to case in hand. 44. 43. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsels for the parties. The provisions of the Places of Worship (special provisions) Act, 1991, in view of Sec.4 thereof does not apply to case in hand. 44. Before dealing with the preliminary objections of the petitioners, a reference may be made to a couplet of a famous Urdu Poet "iqbal about shri Ram Chandraji which reads as under :- "hare RAM KI VAJOOD ME hindustan KO NAAZ. AHALEY NAZAR SAMJHTEY hain USKO EMAMEY HIND. " Here it will also be proper to make in this context, a reference to concept of securalism in Indian context under Constitution of India. The expression "secular" has been introduced in the preamble of the Constitution by Sec.2 of the Constitution Fourty Second (Ameadment) Act, 1976 w. e. f.3-1-1977. There can be no doubt that Securalism is an essential fundamental basic structure of the Constitution as is concept of Socialism or Democracy or Sovereignty or National Integrity. Article 51 (A) of the Constitution imposes fundamental duties on every citizens of India which duties are described in Clause A to J thereof. Article 51-A reads as under :- "51-A. Fundamental duties-It shall be the duty of every citizen of India- (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its deals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem : (b) to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired out national struggle for freedom ; (c) to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and integrity of india ; (b) to defend the country and render national service when called upon to do so ; (e) to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities ; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women ; (f) to value and preserve the rich heritage of our composite culture ; (g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures ; (h) to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform ; (i) to safeguard public property and to abjureiolence ; (j) to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity, so that the nation constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievements. " The Constitution of India as originally framed enshrined the concept of secularism though the expeessions was introduced by the Constitution 42nd (Amendment Act) and so was the concept of duties and cultural heritage as well. That in order to understand, the concept of secularism and what secularism really meant in the context of India, a list of illustrations as contained in the Constitution and engraved in Chapters 1 to 22 of the Constitution of India as adopted by constituent Assembly on the 26th day of November 1949 which bears the signature of all the members of constituent assembly including those of Dr. Rajendra Prasad, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru, Puttabhi, Sita Ramayha, Sardar Baldeo Singh, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Jagjeevan Ram, Dr. M. M. Munshi, Chaudhary Haider husain, Sayyed Abdul Raroof, Qazi Sayyed Qamaruddin, Vishwanath dass, M. M. Sayyed, M. A. Beg, Mohan Lal Saxena, Sacchidanand Sinha and many others including Feroj Gandhi and copies of which must be available with Govt. Law Libraries and copy of which available in the prime Ministers house of the First Prime Minister of India, Pt. Jawahar lal Nehru i. e. Trimurti Bhawan, perse explains the concept of secularism and cultural heritage and the place of Rama, Krishna, Budha. Jain Muni mahavir Shiva Akbar, Guru Govind Singh, Rani Laxmi Bai and many others in that context. It indicates that Shri Ram has been accepted by constituent assembly of India Krishana has been accepted by constituent assembly, Shiva has been accepted by constituent assembly Guru Govind singh has been accepted by constituent assembly as National figure and figures of National cultural heritage and adoration. Those who worked for the welfare and unity and integration of this country have been loved, adored and worshiped. The birth and existence of Ram Chandra with sita and events of their life has been accepted as realities having taken place to establish rule of law and discipline and it has not been left to be taken as mere myth. The revelation of Rama in the form of human being, his birth even can not be denied nor events of life as the same has always been accepted by children of this land Bharat and framers of its constitution. The Constitution shows that the constituent assembly accepted the history of Rama in relation to the places as a fact, reality and of national pride and cultural importance. The Constitution shows that the constituent assembly accepted the history of Rama in relation to the places as a fact, reality and of national pride and cultural importance. One of us, with Gods grace, has got the privilege of having one of be copies of the Constitution as adopted the constituent assembly on November 26, 1949 and we have perused it, we are quite sure many more copies of that constitution must be available in the libraries of the Hon ble High Courts and Hon ble supreme Court as well as of the Government of India and the Government of State including that of State of Uttar Pradesh. It is a document of historical importance and explains the concept of secularism and cultural heritage for the purposes of this case, I may refer to the list of illustrations as contained and Carved in the Constitution as under : 44_277_BLJ1_1993.htm 45. The depiction of various portriats at various pages of the Constitution while adopting it on 26th November, 1949, the constituent assembly expressed itself that these are the national and nationaly recognized phrases and features of our national life, our heritage, our culture and the source of spiration, for adopting the concept of securalism. The secularism is a Western concept may mean negation of religion. Whatever it may mean in the context of the West. 46. The great Indian Philosopher, President of India, Dr. Sarvapalli radha Krishnan in his work, "our Heritage" dealing with it. Jawaharlal nehru writes, page 148, "secularism" is a principle which he gave us. It is a wrong word-wrongly interpreted and misunderstood by many people. It does not mean in-difference to religion. It does not mean opposition to religion. It does not mean disrespect to religion. It only means the State as such is not identified with a particular religion but tolerates every religion, appreciates every religion. . . . "when it respects all religion" it is merely a practice of the fundamental principle of Indian genius of Indian spirit itself. We said long ago in the "rig Veda : Ekam Sad Viprah" and bahudha Vadanti"----"so it is clear secularism is not the negation of dharam, the fundamental and basic tenet of Dharma i. e. Ahimsa, Satya, asleya Brahmacharya, Parigraha etc. It is not negation of high and great qualities and virtues of life. It is not negation of truthfulness non-violence, sense, of duty and responsibility. It is not negation of high and great qualities and virtues of life. It is not negation of truthfulness non-violence, sense, of duty and responsibility. It is not negation of patriotism which is also a part of Dharam and is taken to be something of higher degree than material prosperity even of heavenly abode. In Balmikiramayaan, shri, Ramaji says, (". . . . . . . . ")It is said "hubull A Watan Ninal Imaan" i. e. Patriotism and love for mother land which gives us birth, which gives us comfort and finally the earth to sleep in calamity is part "imaan" i. e. "faith". The negation of patriotism renders one lacking a part of faith and Dharma. 47. The Hindi version of the Constitution further clarifies what is secular and in Hindi for the expression "secularism" the expression "panth NIRPEKSH" has been used i. e. non-secterian non communal secularism, it indicates that secularisation is not negation of Dharma or the basic tenets of Dharma. It really indicates and requires of us that we should make a distinction between spirit of Dharma and the basic fundamental of Dharma t. e. which may be stated as under :- (. . . . . . . .)Secularism is negation of Communalism. In the words of Dr. S. Radha Krishnan we should make distinction between the spirit of religion and forms, ceremonial rituals, marriages, customs, food rules and social Organisation which are its forms". (See Religion and Culture) 48 We should take note that secularism is not negation to spirit of religion or Dharma but it takes the colour of a panth or Communal sect when it is shrouded and encircled by ceremonies, rituals, customs, food rules and organisations and it takes the form of sect or school. Secularism does not favour nor does give preference to one School or the other, one sect of one panth over the other. 49. Here Rama when we adopted him and his life as apart of our constitution theme to depict certain ideals, he became a constitutional entity and a reality of our National Culture Fabric not a myth. Secularism does not favour nor does give preference to one School or the other, one sect of one panth over the other. 49. Here Rama when we adopted him and his life as apart of our constitution theme to depict certain ideals, he became a constitutional entity and a reality of our National Culture Fabric not a myth. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to have Darshan of the places attached to Rama as Janma Bhoomi is a thing of faith and religion and of National ethos and culture which Hindu i. e. the Children of this land, which is surrounded by Himalaya in North and by Ocean Indusarovor in the South as depicted under our original Constitution vide item numbers twenty and twenty two which indicates reason for the Geographical name of this land of our. "hindustan". The claim becomes more important than mere a right of relegion and faith. It also imposes a great obligation of fundamental nature on the part of the State and its authorities to allow the petitioner to pay homage have Darshan and to the constitutionally admitted and recognised. National figure ferred as Imam-E-Hind by iqbal part and parcel or one diety of adoration and worship as God by Hindus and of cultural heritage of India. Denying such a valuable fundamental and constitutional right which became a part of basic structure of the constitution is something which the petitioner is entitled to enforce may be on the basis of the orders of this Hon ble Court passed on 26.4.1955, contained in annexure No.1 or on the basis of orders contained in Annexure No.2 dated 1.2.1986. When the Hindus and the devotees of Ram claim rights to have a Darshan and Pooja of that deity whom the devotees worship as bhagwan and framers of the constitution treated as great national figure of this country and its countrys basic culture, it is something superficial to argue that the petition is not maintainable and should be dismissed on the grounds of techanicalities. 50. 50. In the case of Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra V/s. State of uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court page 2187, their lordships of the Supreme Court has laid down law in clear terms : "the writ petitions before us are not inter party disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation___we may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigation, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time, it has to be remembered that every technicality in procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the Court. Even if it is said that there was a final order in a dispute of this type it would be difficult to entertain plea of res judicata. " 51. In the case of Bangalore Medical Trust V/s. B. S. Madappa AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 1902 at page 1915, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed : "locus standi to approach by way of writ petition and refusal to grant relief in equity jurisdiction are two different aspects, may be with same result. One relates to maintainability of the petition and other to the exercise of discretion. Law on the former has marched much ahead. Many mile-stones have been covered. The restricted meaning of aggreived person and narrow outlook of specific injury has yielded in favour of broad and wide construction in wake of public interest litigation. . . . . . Law has veered round from genuine grievance against order affecting prejudicially to sufficient interest in the matter. The rise in exercise of power by the executive and comparative decline in proper and effective administrative guidance forcing citizens to espouse challenge with public interest flavour. In fact, public spirited citizens having faith in rule of law are rendering great social and legal service by espousing the cause of public nature. Theycannot be ignored or over-looked on technical or conservative yard-stick of rule of locus siandi or absence of personal loss or injury. " 52. Role of lawyers and Advocates Association in regard to public interest matters has been recognised by the Hon ble Supreme Court. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision in the case of S. P. Gupta and others V/s. Union of India, reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court page 149. " 52. Role of lawyers and Advocates Association in regard to public interest matters has been recognised by the Hon ble Supreme Court. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision in the case of S. P. Gupta and others V/s. Union of India, reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court page 149. In this connection, further reference may be made to the observation of Hon ble Mr. Justice Krishnalyer in Fertilizers Corporation kamagarh Union V/s. Union of India, reported in AIR 1981 Supreme Court page 344 At page 356 of the report, his Lordship observed : "if a citizens no morethan a way farer on officious intervener without any interest or. concern beyond what belongs to any one of 660 millions people of the country, the door of the Court will not be Ajar for him. But he belongs to an organisation which has special interest in the subject matter, if he has some concern deeper than that of a busy body, he can not be told off at the gates, although whether the issue raised by him is justiciable may still remains to be considered. " 53. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case: it can well be said that the petitioner, Advocates Association and their members have got a claim. Apart from their own individual rights they have responsibility towards public at large and to come forward to espouse the cause of many persons of weaker section who could not come to Court to agitate their rights enshrined under Article 25 of the Constitution of india of Faith and religion and patriotism in the sense of love for nation and for the national heritage and for all those greatmen including the great rama whom the people of this country worshipped as God and in the word of Iqbal as ahley-NAZAR and who has been recognised by the makers of our constitution as a national figure of cultural heritage of india as has been mentioned above. 54. It will not be out of place to refer to the observations made in the judgment of Hqnble S. H. A. Raza, J. in the decision while sitting in full Bench deciding the Writ Petition No.3540 of 91 Mohd. 54. It will not be out of place to refer to the observations made in the judgment of Hqnble S. H. A. Raza, J. in the decision while sitting in full Bench deciding the Writ Petition No.3540 of 91 Mohd. Hashim V/s. State of U. P. and others, and Writ Petition No.3541 of 1991 Panch Ramanandji nirmohi Akhara and others V/s. State of U. P. , connected writ petitions in which the acquisition of 2.77 acres of land by the Government of Uttar pradesh was challenged. The relevant observations made in the said judgment read as under : "the genesis of" Ayodhya imbraglio lay is the belief of crores of indian People that Lord Sri Ram Chandra J. was born at ayodhya. On the scale of historicity, such a faith cannot be established for the only reason that Lord Sri Ram Chandraji manifested Himself in the Pre-historic period. According to the scholars of Hindu Scriptures Lord Sri Ram Chandra Ji, filled the World with compassion and ushered in, an epoch making highest democratic order, more than five thousand years before lord Christ. The following words of bhagvad Gita (Chapter X Shloka 31, translated from Sanskrit to English by Jaya Dayal Goyandka, gita Press, Gorakphpur) shows that Lord Sri Ram Chandra Ji, revealed prior to the events of mahabharat which according to the authors, who have made their expertise in Sanskrit language, dates back to about two thousand years before Lord Christ. "pawanah PAWTAMASMI RAMAH shastra BHRITAMAHAM jhashanam MAKRASHCHASMI STROTA samismjahvi" meaning thereby that Lord Krishna told Arjun "amongst purifiers, I am wind amongst the wielders of weapons I am (Sri) Ram amongst fishes I am shark and amongst the streams, I am Ganga. " In Bal Kand Sarg-3 Adhiyatm Ramayan (Braham Puran uttarakhand)great Saint Ved Vyas in the following words commented that ayodhya was ruled by Raja Dashratha : "ath RAJA DASHRATHAH SHRIMAN SATYAPARAYNAH ayodhyadhipatirvir SARVLOKESHU V1shrutah. " as per the great epic ram Charit Manas composed by the greatest amongst the great poet, sant Goswami Tulsidas in verse mentioned hereinunder, stated that dashratha was the king of Avadh Puri : "avadhpuri RAGHUKULMANI RADO VED VIDIT tehi DASHRATH NADO DHARAMDHURANDHAR gun NIDHI GYANI HRIDAY BHAGATI MATI sarang PANI. " (Verse 4-after Doha-187)Meaning thereby that the king of Avadhpuri was the Jewel of Raghuvansh or Kul. He was Dashratha, a name by which he has been known in Vedas. " (Verse 4-after Doha-187)Meaning thereby that the king of Avadhpuri was the Jewel of Raghuvansh or Kul. He was Dashratha, a name by which he has been known in Vedas. He was a Champion of virtues, a repository of good qualities and a man of wisdom and was a devotee of Lord Vishnu, that is weilder of SARANG bow. Goswami Tulsidas dealing with the birth of great Lord described the birth of the great Lord as mentioned below :- "mandir MAHN SAB RAJAHI RANI shobhaj SHEETAL KI KHANI naumi TITHI MAHU MAS PUNEERA SUKUL paksh ABH1ji HARIPREETA bhaye PRAGAT KRIPALA DEEN DAYALA kaushlya HITKARI harshit MAHTARI HARI ADBHUT ROOP VICHARI dashrath PUTRA JANAM SUNI KANA manjhu BRAHMANAND SAMANA jakar NAM SUNAT SHUBH HOI MORE GRIH ava PRABHU SOI kaikay SUTA SUMITRA DO DO SUNDER suit JANMAT BHAI avadhpuri SOHAI SAB BHANTI PRABHUHI milan AAI JANURANI. " (Bal Kand, earlier to Doha-105)Meaning thereby that the palace has shown all the Queens who were full of beauty and virtue, of glory, and time was an occasion of happiness. On the Sukul Paksha Nawni of sacred Chaitramasa the gracious Lord who is compassionate to lowly and poor and being benefactor of Kaushalya revealed himself. The thought of marvellous face which state the heart of sages filled the heart of another Kaushalya with joy. Dashrath hearing the news of the birth of a son was filled up with Supreme pleasure, particularly, with the idea that he one whose name is such, hearing of which blessing would come to his house. Both Kaikajee and Sumitra also gave birth to beautiful sons. On this occasion the city of avadhpuri wore a gala appearings. It looked, as if night had come to see meet its Lord. Further the following words in Uttar Kand exhibits that the great lord was born in Avadhpuri :- IHAN BHANUKUL KAMAL DTWAKAR KAPINH DEKHAWAT nagar MANH sunu KAPIS ANGAD LANKESH PAWANPURI RUCHIR YAD desh jaddap SAB BAIKUNTH BAKHANA VED PURAN VIDIT JAG jana AVADHPURI sampriy NAHI SO DO YAH PRASANG JANAI KOI KO-DO janmbhumi MAM PURI SUHAWANI UTTAR DISI BAH sarjoo PAWANI neither the great Saint Ved Vyas nor Goswami Tulsidas, could have ever imagined, |that their epic by the passage of time would become an article of faith for millions of men and women. As far as ram Charit Manas is concerned, it is regarded as to most sacred book and is viodely read over throughout the country, and in the World all over, where Indians live. Manifestation of Lord Sri Ram Chandra Ji in Avadhpuri, which according to scholars is synonymous to ayodhya may not be established historically, but it has become on article of faith for the crores of Indian people, and it may be said that this question cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. 55 The next contention raised on behalf of the opposite-parties is that the petition should not be entertained at the instance of the petitioners i. e. Vishwa Hindu Adhivakta Sangh espousing the cause of Hindus and devotees of Shri Rama on earth for the reason that the old disputed structure which the opposite-party used to call the mosque or Babari masjid has been dismantled and demolished by miscreants and breakers of law who have done unauthorised acts in utter violation of order of the supreme Court dated 15-11-1990 by committing illegalities and contempt of Supreme Court by demolishing the Babri Masjid and making encroachment thereon. Their case is that the then State Government did not honour the undertaking given by it to Supreme Court and so all the petitioners and the Hindus all over the country may be deprived of their fundamental right and the right to perform the duty under Article 51-A as well and their petitions be dismissed as not maintainable. In the affidavit it has been disclosed at all that the act of demolition was done by, the petitioners i. e. Advocates or Members of petitioner, namely, vishwa Hindu Adhivakta Sangh, or of Akhil Bhartiya Nehru Brigade or by Maharshi Avadhesh. Further the opposite-parties in their affidavit have not made any specific allegation against any member of the petitioner or any specific individual Hindu. Further the opposite-parties in their affidavit have not made any specific allegation against any member of the petitioner or any specific individual Hindu. For the acts of some unknown handful miscreants in the form of the alleged Kar Sewaks or Hindus, it is most unjust on the part of the opposite-parties to say that because some unknown miscreants have done the act and who cannot be specified, the petitioners in all the three petitions or the sons of this land, the mother, land Hindustan bearing the name indicating the geographical boundry from North to South and from East to West and called Hindus adopting the name of their Mother-Land Hindustan derived from the conjunction of two expressions hi of himalaya and indu of indu Sarovar should be deprived of their constitutional right of worship their Lord Shri rama, a figure constitutionally accepted as Lord of the builders of this nation and its culture is too far a big question, no person should be denied a right or relief unless it is specifically proved that all the members of the petitioner association or the petitioner or all the Hindus of the country have demolished the disputed structure which is yet to be proved and established whether it was a mosque at all and which is a subject matter of dispute in the suits pending before the Full Bench of. this court and about which at times it is said that the matter may be referred to Supreme court for decision. Such bald Allegations without any proof of real culprits in order to put a defence by the opposite-parties and in particular interveners appears to be based on non-application of mind because if this is put in the reverse gear and as at time it is being said that an invader invaded the Mother-Land of the people of this country, trempled their culture and demolished the temple of Ram Janam Bhoomi (When such allegations on fact have to be formed and established so far and which is subject matter of dispute in suits ). The persons belonging to other sect. should be deprived of their right because they represent the cause of one who demolished the culture and heritage of this country 500 years ago the intervener associated themselves with such a person who may stand on the same footing as the petitioners. The persons belonging to other sect. should be deprived of their right because they represent the cause of one who demolished the culture and heritage of this country 500 years ago the intervener associated themselves with such a person who may stand on the same footing as the petitioners. The objection to the maintainability of the petitions on the ground alleged by them and on the basis of such bald allegations that the petitions of the petitioners who cannot be said to have neither committed breach of obligations or said to have committed any act of irreverence to the Supreme Court orders, leaving aside the question of contempt by the Uttar Pradesh Government or its employees with reference to whom no observation is being made in this judgment and which is a matter to be considered by the Supreme Court is unsustainably fpr ordinary citizens residing at distant parts of country coming for Darshan or persons pleading their right to approach this court seeking redress if and when they are denied their right to have darshan and Puja of their Isht Dev. The denial of almighty worship simply for the reasons that then government of Uttar Pradesh or some un-identified miscreants have done some act jeopardising the prestige of the nation or some one who is alleged to have committed breach of undertaking given by him is unjust and wrong. In this view of the matter there is no substance in the objection raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition on this ground, the objection is rejected. 56. In this view of the matter there is no substance in the objection raised as to the maintainability of the writ petition on this ground, the objection is rejected. 56. The third objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition has been taken by the learned Advocate General as well as by the learned counsel for the interveners to the effect that the petitioners have got alternative remedy of filing suit or of moving application under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in those suits, the said objection is without substance as has been mentioned earlier, in the matter of writ of public importance in which interest of people at large is involved and in which the grave public interest is involved as observed by Hon ble Supreme Court, rules of either locus standi or technical rules or technical objections should not be permitted to be raised and the petitioner should not be asked to leave the premises of this court and the said ground cannot be allowed to stand nor on the said ground the petitioners who are public spirited men and who are raising public cause can be refused the remedy under Article 226 of the constitution for enforcing the constitutional rights of the people in general. However, the remedy of the said in such cases definitely is not equally efficacious and quick as we had past experience of the suits pending since 1950 in the Civil Courts and could not be decided so far, might be, on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the parties or their counsel or on account of some other reasons so remedy of suit is not equally efficacious and secondly the petitioners are no. t parties in those suits, it will be just and proper to ask them to move application in those suits for being impleaded as defendant etc. As such, the remedy of suit not being equally efficacious is no ground of alternative remedy. Further, if the applicants or petitioners are asked to movs for impleadment in the suits then every time every one has to move application, seek time for filing written statement in one suit or the other and then it may result in delaying the disposal of the suits which are more than quarter century old. Further, if the applicants or petitioners are asked to movs for impleadment in the suits then every time every one has to move application, seek time for filing written statement in one suit or the other and then it may result in delaying the disposal of the suits which are more than quarter century old. As such, the objection raised by the learned Advocate General as well as by the learned counsel for the interveners on this ground is unsustainable and is rejected. The learned counsel for the opposite-side namely, learned Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the interveners submitted that the building in dispute has been a mosque, which has been admitted by State and really the Muslims have got right to offer prayer. The question is yet in dispute in the suits pending for decision before the full bench of this court. In Suit No.4 of 1989 there are good many issues in which the issues involved in substance raise question to the effect that whether the building in dispute (which had existed till 5-12-1992) was a mosque or could it be a mosque in accordance with the tenets of island and Holi Quran which prescribes certain ingredients in the matter of mosque even if it was by appearance a mosque as claimed to be but it was not a mosque or in case it came in the category of Masjid zerar which is not recognised in Quaran and in respect of Masjid Zerar in Quran it is provided Allah Talah ordained his great massenger Holi paigambar Mohammad not to recite Namaz in such mosques, the construction of which is against the tenets of Quran, should not be recognised as a mosque and even in respect of which i. e. Masjid Zerar it has gone to the extent of saying that such mosques may be given good-bye. So, all these disputed questions of fact about the old disputed structure, which existed and as to which it is alleged to have been established or made by Babar alleged to be a moghul invader or otherwise have not been decided and are yet pending decision before the Full Bench, in the suits it cannot be accepted as proposition of law that this court while dealing with the petition of the three petitioners should hold or record a finding on the subject when the same is subject matter in the four suits or which, as the interveners says, may be referred to the Hon ble Supreme court for consideration by the Government. 57. In such circumstances, there appears no substance in the application of the opposite-parties and interveners that the petitioners petitions be dismissed simply on the basis of the disputed question of fact to the effect whether the disputed building which had existed till 5-12-1992 was a mosque and this court also cannot at this stage hold that any right or any fundamental right of Muslims is going to be outraged or interfered with. The Constitution under Article 25 recognises right of religion. Any custom, any practice, any rule any construction of building in the name of allah or on the pretext of being in the name of Allah but which is in complete violation of tenets of religion or Holi Quran has no recognition under article 25 of the constitution. Right to religion means right to religion and faith keeping pace with the basic and fundamental doctrines enshrined in that religion and it does not include itself those rights, practises or customs or rights to a person or community in the name of religion which in fact runs contrary to basic tenets of Islam or tenets of that particular religion so the questions of fact being involved and the same have yet to be decided. The petitioners petitions cannot be thrown on the ground alleged or asserted by the learned Advocate General or by the opposite-parties even on a further basis of the alleged admission of the State Government referred to in Paragraph 5 of the affidavit of Mohd. Ismail dated 25-12-92 because in such a case admission even if, of the State Government, is not going to bind the opposite-parties. Ismail dated 25-12-92 because in such a case admission even if, of the State Government, is not going to bind the opposite-parties. The basic elements and the basic things of the religion concerned have to be applied in respect of any custom or religious property, particularly, when the custom or religious nature of the property is in dispute leaving aside such questions as of faith, namely, the faith in respect of relevation of Quran the messenger of Allah the Holi incarnation and appearance in the fort of Dasharath in Ayodhya and at a place to the north of which flows Sarjoo river as the various ramayans composed by Balmiki, Ved Vyas, Tulsidas and Kamban and history reveal. History is not collection of dates of events simplicitor or of various kingdoms, it is something which presents the culture and heritage of a country. It presents before us the characteristics of the great men that land has produced with an object to produce ethos of character building and nation building and in that context if we see these epics whether it be Balmiki Ramayan or that of Kamban or Ramayan of tulsidas or Ramayan of Ved Vyas they are documents of historical and cultural importance as well. At this juncture it will not be out of place to refer to what Mahatama Gandhi has said about the importance of one of this verse and in particular to the verse of Tulsidas i. e. in the verse of gita My Mother by Mahatama Gandhi and published by Peri Publication pvt. Ltd.249, Dadabhai Naoroji Marg Bombay and edited by Anand T hingorani with reference to the publication (Newspaper) Young India, dated September 25, 1925 : "i find the greatest consolation from the Bhagvad Gita and Tulsidas Ramayan. I frankly confess that Quran, Bible and other scriptures of the world, inspite of my great regard for them, do not move me as do Gita of Krishna and the Ramayan of Tulsidas. " It per se shows authenticity and the value of Ramayan of Tulsidas and Gita of Krishna which have been referred by my brother Justice S. H. A. Raza in the Full Bench decision relating to land Acquisition Case and quoted hereinabove by us. 58 It has been argued by learned Advocate General and the counsel for the interveners that once order under Sec.144, Cr. 58 It has been argued by learned Advocate General and the counsel for the interveners that once order under Sec.144, Cr. P. C. had been passed and on account thereof the petitioners and Hindus as well as others were not allowed to go to Ayodhya or to Ram Janam Bhoomi to have darshan of Shri Ram Lala. There are nothing illegal as the order has been passed by a Competent Authority and unless the order was challenged, the contention of the learned Advocate General have been that the petitioners are not entitled to file writ petitions as well as claim the relief. He has referred to the provisions of Sec.144, Cr. P. C. and has further contended that it will be open to the petitioner and other Hindus to go to the District Magistrate, he may allow according to situation prevailing or may not allow because in grave situations fundamental rights stand suspended. There appears to be no substance in the contention of the learned advocate General. Courts, Civil or Criminal exists for the protection of the rights of the citizens. The authority of Magistrate under Sec.144, cr. P. C. has ordinarily to be exercised in the defence of such rights rather than in suspension thereof. The order under Sec.144, Cr. P. C. if made should never be disproportionate and it should always be comensurate to the exisgencies and emergencies of a particular situation. As a general rule when breach of peace is anticipated action has to be taken against potential law breakers and not against all the peace loving and peaceful citizens whom it is expected that law breakers will molest. In the case of Sundara V/s. Walnakya (2) W E T R Weir Cri. Rules Madras, the law has been laid down to the effect to attach a temple does not necessarily mean that temple must be closed altogether when the third party or general communities are interested, it is the duty of the Magistrate when assuming charge of it in order to preserve public peace to make arrangements if possible to preserve the rights of such third party or the public and to have the Puja of deity installed in the temple performed. 59. 59. In this view of the matter when situations are changed to a large extent during this period from 6th December, 1992 onwards it has been duty of the District Magistrate and the authorities to consider the question of relaxation of orders under Sec.144 Cr. P. C. in the context of situation prevailing and if some restraint is required and control is yet required to make or continue the authorities can well make room to protect the rights of ordinary citizen to have Dharshan and could pass orders allow ing the people-the devotees of Shri Ram Lala to have Darshan in regulated manner and under control and vigilence keeping in view the need and requirements of the situation. The restraint should be to such an extent and nature as are only necessary and as such the opposite parties including the State authorities are required to honour the funda. mental rights of the petitioner and every peace loving Hindus and public at large in this regard who wishes to offer prayer and Darshan before the deity at Shri Ram Janam Sthan in the light of the orders contained in annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition. The Pujaris of that temple we have been informed five in number are being alowed and three are being allowed to perform-Puja at a time. It is the duty of the State authority to see that to the best possible extent keeping in view the needs of the time as well as keeping in view the essential and necessary security and the least possible restrictions the petitioners and the general Hindu public is allowed to have Darshan in accordance with rituals and tenets of vaishnav Sampraday and also to allow the Puja and Aarti to be performed every day in accordance with the customs or religious scriptures and principles. The petitioners have further prayed that the opposite-parties may be directed to collect and preserve debris, articles and materials which may furnish suitable evidence for being considered by the authorities deciding the disputed question which existed prior to or before december 6, 1992 either by the full Bench or by the Supreme Court in case the matter is referred by the Government as is alleged. 60. 60. Thus, considering, the writ petitions are allowed to this extent only that the opposite-parties are commanded by issuance of writ of mandamus directing them to allow the petitioners, the Hindus and devotees of Shri Ram ji to have Darshan in a meaningful manner at Ram Janam bhoomi, Ayodhya from such a distance which may not be disproportionate and too far off, with reference to devotees and pilgrims view and the vision from outside but taking note of the security of the idol as well as the surrounding circumstances prevailing. The opposite parties are further directed to consider the matter with reference to the protection of idols and the properties and articles relating to the idols as well as to take note of the conditions in which idol and pujaris are to live and perform the Puja during this winter season as well as during summer and rainy seasons and whether a cloth canopy would be sufficient and suitable arrangement should be made to save the idol and the property relating to idol and the Pujaris from the vagaries and agony of the weather. However the opposite parties and other State authorities are free to take independent decision regarding control of law and order problem in accordance with the needs of situation and to regulate entry of the devotees and pilgrims with a view to maintain law and order situation and the security of the idol of Shri Ram Lala and others and the articles and properties relating thereto and that of the pujaris. The opposite parties are further directed to preserve and protect the material and articles of historical/archeological importance which have been or may be found on the spot in the debris of demolished structure or in the nearby area. Pillar of democracy, i. e. , press may also be supplied copies today, without cost, if rule so permits. The learned counsels for the Interveners, if also want to have copies, they may also be supplied copies on payment of necessary charges today. The Registry will arrange for supply to all concerned. Petition decided accordingly.