Since Muslims never declared the place as a Waqf property before or after the construction, the construction could not be used as Mosque at any point of time, it claimed.

As the property is administered by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) the petitioners had sought the restoration of deities within the temple complex and to create a trust to manage puja, worship, and maintenance of the property as per the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).

The court, however, rejected the argument that worshippers have the right to exercise their religion conferred by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India and have the right to ensure that deities are restored at their original place with due dignity is “devoid of merit”.

The judge opined that once a structure has been declared to be a protected monument and is owned by the government, then the plaintiffs cannot insist that the place of worship must actually and actively be used for religious services.

Rejecting the suit, Civil Judge Neha Sharma said, “India had a culturally rich history. It has been ruled over by numerous dynasties. During arguments, the counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued on the point of national shame. However, nobody has denied that wrongs were committed in the past, but such wrongs cannot be the basis for disturbing the peace of our present and future.”

The judge added, “Our country had a rich history and has seen challenging times. Nevertheless, history has to be accepted as a whole. Can the good be retained and bad be deleted from our history?”

She referred to the Ayodhya judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in 2019 and highlighted a portion of it in the order, which stated, “Cognizant as we are of our history and of the need for the nation to confront it, Independence was a watershed moment to heal the wounds of the past. Historical wrongs cannot be remedied by the people taking the law into their own hands.”

(With inputs from agencies)