Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

1993 DIGILAW 710 (SC)

Mohd. Aslam @ Bhure v. Union of India and State Of U. P.

1993-08-06

M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, S.MOHAN

body1993
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner expresses concern over the developments and improvements allegedly being carried out at the "Ram Janam Bhoomi - Babri Masjid Complex" at Ayodhya and alleges that these activities are directed towards achieving, though un-perceptually and in stages, the construction of a permanent temple at the site of the demolished structure. Petitioner avers that, from stage to stage, the disputed structure is being improved upon and the construction of a full-fledged temple is either under way or is imminent. 2. Petitioner also avers that there has been a collection of steel rods and stone slabs in the immediate vicinity of the disputed structure with intent that they will come in hand in the surreptitious construction. There is also some dispute as to the property of the description of the area put up on certain signboards which Sri O.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner characterises as presenting a one sided version of the dispute. Petitioner seeks a judicial interdiction of further construction and removal of the constructional material and the offending signboards. 3. Government of India has caused to be filed two affidavits - one by Sri Arvind Verma, currently posted as Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow cum Authorised Person under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 (Act XXXIII of 1993) and the other by Sri Anil Sant, Joint Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. Both of them deny that there is any intention to do. So far as the collection of steel rods and stone slabs is concerned, it is submitted by them that the said materials were found lying in the area even prior to the demolition and that consistently with the police of the Government nor to alter the status quo. Government has left the materials untouched. It is also averred that the material will not, nor was even intended to, be utilised for purposes of any construction at the site of the demolished structure. They say, however, that they would abide by any directions of the Court in regard to the shifting of the location or disposal of the said materials and of the signboards which latter, they say were also in existence prior to the demolition. They say, however, that they would abide by any directions of the Court in regard to the shifting of the location or disposal of the said materials and of the signboards which latter, they say were also in existence prior to the demolition. They say as any action on the part of the authorities might arouse passions of one section or the other of the people the authorities, left to themselves, would prefer to leave the matters alone. 4. These matters require consideration. We shall make appropriate orders after hearing both sides fully. But, as an interim measure, we direct that the status quo as to the present State of the structure which is delineated in the plans, Annexures I and 2 annexed to this order (these plans are filed by Union of India) shall not be altered in any manner without the express prior permission of the Court. 5. Learned Attorney General, however, made a submission that if a situation of urgency arises in the matter of preserving the structure as it now stands from ravages of the weather, Government should be at liberty to attend to such an emergency and carry out such work as may be necessary and report the steps taken to the Court immediately, if possible on the very following day. 6. Even according to learned Attorney General, this measure of precaution would not contemplate or envisage any additions or alterations to be made in the pattern of the existing structure, but is intended only to preserve the present state of the structure as it obtains today. If that be so, there will really be no violation of the order inasmuch as maintenance and repair would not involve any additions or alterations to the structure. Mere maintenance of the structure is not what is proposed to be interdicted. No express permission in this behalf should really be necessary. 7. List the application for further hearing on other reliefs sought by the petitioner.