Explained: A short history of the Hubbali-Dharwad Idgah controversy

A single-judge High Court Bench of Justice Ashok Kinagi had declined to provide interim relief to the petitioner Anjuman-e-Islam saying the Supreme Court’s order from a few hours previously to maintain status quo at the Idgah ground in Chamrajpet in Bengaluru did not apply to the Hubbali-Dharwad case. On August 30 evening, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had said no to Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations at the Idgah grounds in Bengaluru.

In its late night order, the High Court said there was no title dispute in Hubbali-Dharwad, it was clear that the property belonged to Dharwad Municipality, and the petitioner was a licensee who had permission for namaz only on certain specified days of the year.

Background

The Idgah, one of three in Hubbali, is said to have been traditionally used by local Muslims to offer Ramzan and Bakrid prayers. There are some old reports of fairs and meetings by various political parties at the ground in the decades before Independence. The ownership of the land is said to have been with one Moopana Basappa Narool, one Esar Vanch Padri, and the Basel Mission at various times in the nineteenth century.

The land was acquired by the Hubbali Municipality in the early years of the 20th century. In 1921, the Anjuman-e-Islam petitioned the municipality to allow Muslims to hold prayers in the maidan. The municipality accepted the representation, and the land was leased to the Anjuman for 999 years. The lease agreement was subsequently confirmed by the government of the Bombay Presidency.

In the 1960s the government allowed the Anjuman to build shops on the land under specified terms and conditions. In 1972, the Anjuman tried to construct a commercial complex at the site, and subsequently a structure was erected. There was a legal challenge to the Anjuman’s move on the ground that this was not allowed by the 1921 lease agreement, and the matter went through several decades of litigation.

In 2010, the Supreme Court confirmed the order of the Karnataka High Court and the lower courts, ruling that the Idgah maidan was the exclusive property of the Hubbali-Dharwad Municipal Corporation, and that the Anjuman had the licence only to hold prayers in the ground twice a year, and not to build any permanent structure on it.

Flag-hoisting issue

The dispute over the land took a political-communal turn in the context of the Ramjanmabhoomi agitation in the 1990s. In 1992, an attempt was made to raise the National Flag at the ground, which was stopped by the then Congress government saying it would lead to communal tensions in the town. It was argued that the Flag could not be hoisted in a “disputed” property that was the subject of ongoing litigation.

In 1994, BJP leader Uma Bharti announced she would hoist the Tricolour at the maidan on Independence Day. The state government imposed a curfew, but Bharti and a group of supporters managed to enter the town, and were arrested about a kilometre from the maidan. However, six people were killed in police firing and there was tension in the town.

The years that followed were relatively peaceful. Police guarded the site even as the litigation continued. There were no major incidents of communal violence.

Places of Worship Act

The single-judge Bench of the High Court on Tuesday night rejected the Anjuman’s prayer that the property was protected by the Places of Worship Act, 1991. It was noted that the ground was being used for parking vehicles, vending, etc., and that there was no record showing that it had been declared a place of worship.

The 1991 Act was brought by the Congress government of Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao at a time when the Ram temple movement was at its peak, “to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on the 15th day of August, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

The Act bars the conversion, in full or part, of a place of worship of any religious denomination into a place of worship of a different religious denomination — or even a different segment of the same religious denomination, and declares that the religious character of a place of worship “shall continue to be the same as it existed” on August 15, 1947.

The constitutional validity of the Act is under challenge on grounds including arbitrariness.