Any law imagined by pro-Ram Temple groups is sure to be challenged before the Supreme Court. So, what is the way forward?

The list of individuals and organisations demanding a legislation for the Ram Temple at Ayodhya is increasing by the day. On November 3 and 4, more than 3,000 seers, including the likes of Baba Ramdev, Jaggi Vasudev and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, converged at New Delhi’s Talkatora Stadium where they passed a resolution asking the Union Government to either bring an Ordinance or enact a law for the construction of the Ram Temple. On November 25, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat, while speaking at a Dharma Sabha organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) in Nagpur, reiterated the demand. Prof Rakesh Sinha, Rajya Sabha MP (Nominated), too, has said he may move a private member’s Bill in the House for the construction of the Ram Temple. Since Sinha is considered close to the RSS top brass, it set off a speculation that the proposed Ram Temple legislation enjoys Government support. But the wording of Sinha’s tweet showed he was more interested in exposing Congress chief Rahul Gandhi, Bahujan Samaj Party supremo Mayawati, Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram Yechury and Rashtriya Janata Dal chief Lalu Prasad Yadav who have always taunted the RSS on keeping the deadline for temple construction open-ended. It would be a leap of faith to assume from Sinha’s statement that the proposed Bill enjoys the support of the BJP and the Government. But it is also true that people do expect the BJP, and especially Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, to take the lead in building it. Perhaps Sinha was also reflecting the views of the BJP support base and trying to convey to the Government to come out in favour of a legislation which it has not done yet.

The Prime Minister and some of his eloquent Ministers, who are also legal experts, are completely silent on the issue. Recently, BJP president Amit Shah, at an election rally in Jaipur, said the party would prefer a judicial solution (nyayik samadhan). Shah, in an exclusive interview to Zee TV, said there was no need for an Ordinance on Ram Temple since the Supreme Court has decided to hear the case in January next year. Modi, while addressing a rally in Alwar, made a sensational accusation against the Congress. He said that some Congress members, who are Rajya Sabha MPs, threatened Supreme Court judges with impeachment if the case was not deferred until the General Election. He, however, refrained from telling us what the Government proposed to do.

Thus, at present, pro-Temple organisations are demanding a legislation/ordinance. The BJP, on the other hand, is hesitant to disappoint them completely by telling them its would be a zero sums game. It wants to keep their hopes afloat without committing itself to anything tangible. But it’s time we looked at the limits of legislative competence of the Government.

The Government cannot build any religious institution, for example, a temple, mosque, church or gurudwara in the manner it can build a central university, an institution of eminence, an observatory, a hospital, a residential campus, a road or a bridge. This is because India is Constitutionally a secular state. A Bill, whether Government or private, submitted to the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha as the case might be, will be first scrutinised by the secretariat of the relevant House for its Constitutional propriety. Any Member of the House, while the Bill is being introduced, can raise the issue of legislative competence. A Bill for Ram Temple is unlikely to pass muster in Parliament.

The other proposal of pro-Temple forces is equally problematic. It moots that the Government should acquire the land currently subject to legal dispute and hand it over to the Hindus. At present, the Union Government is the receiver of around 71 acres, including 2.77 acres of the disputed site, by virtue of Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993. But since the Government is the receiver and not the owner of the legally disputed site, it cannot arbitrarily hand it over to one party in exclusion to the other claimant. To cite an example, if Mr A has a dispute with his neighbour Mr B over a private piece of land, can the Government acquire it and hand it over wholly to Mr A? Think about it.

Any such law imagined by pro-Temple organisations is likely to be challenged on the ground of legal competence or arbitrary and biased behaviour of the Government.  Therefore, in that hypothetical situation, we would once again be looking towards the Honourable Judges of the Supreme Court rather than Honourable Members of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister, who recently waxed eloquent on the virtues of the Indian Constitution in the 50th edition of his radio programme Mann Ki Baat, should have made the position clear. It would be ultra vires to the Constitution to bring a piece of legislation on Ram Temple. But perhaps it will not be politically expedient for him to tell this hard truth.

The Dharma Sabha at Ayodhya has provided relief to him by saying that the issue would be taken up with the Prime Minister after December 11. But December 11 is when the Winter Session of Parliament begins. Notifications of Government business in the House would already have been published by that time. The forthcoming session is likely to be the last of 16th Lok Sabha unless a truncated session for a vote-on-account is called. So, those who are harping on a legislation for the Ram Temple should know that time is their enemy.

The Ram Temple land dispute has dragged on since 1950 in independent India not to speak of the decades it was in court in the colonial era. At the time, the humble prayers of the petitioners (Hindu sants) were allowed to merely conduct prayers before the deity, Ram Lalla. The deity mysteriously ‘appeared’ inside the defunct Babri mosque in 1949. There was no demand to hand over the site to the Hindus or to dismantle the structure initially. But after the 1992 demolition, a new vista opened up before Hindus organisations which started pressing for the construction of a grand Ram Temple on the site. That dream will only come true through a judicial process if the land dispute is settled in their favour by the apex court. Pro-Temple organisations should realise that the Government’s hands are tied.

(The writer is an independent researcher based in New Delhi. Views expressed here are personal.)