Building a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya was a major poll issue in 2014 Lok Sabha election in this Uttar Pradesh town. Now, there are talks about realising the poll promise through an ordinance. (Photo: Reuters file)

An ordinance for building a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya is not a new thing. The Narendra Modi government has yet to make up its mind on it. But more than 25 years ago, a Congress government had brought an ordinance for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

It happened in January 1993, only a month after the Babri Masjid was brought down by a massive assembly of kar sevaks (volunteers) participating in a movement led by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and aided by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on December 6, 1992. Back then, PV Narasimha Rao was the prime minister.

The Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Ordinance was promulgated by then President Shankar Dayal Sharma on January 7, 1993. Later, a Bill was introduced in Parliament by then Union Home Minister SB Chavan. After being passed, the Bill came to be known as the Ayodhya Act.

Tabling the Bill to replace Ram Mandir Ordinance, Chavan said, "It is necessary to maintain communal harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst the people of India." This is the same argument that many BJP leaders are putting forth.

The Ram Mandir Ordinance and the subsequent Ayodhya Act had been brought "to acquire the site of the disputed structure and suitable adjacent land for setting up a complex" that would have a temple dedicated to Lord Ram.

The Narasimha Rao government acquired 60.70 acre land surrounding the disputed site of 2.77 acre. The Congress government planned to build "a Ram temple, a mosque, amenities for pilgrims, a library, museum and other suitable facilities" in Ayodhya.

BJP Opposed Ayodhya Act

But, the Ayodhya Act failed to pave way for a Ram Mandir. The BJP vehemently opposed the Narasimha Rao government's moves -- the ordinance and also the Ayodhya Act. The then BJP vice-president SS Bhandari called it "partisan, petty and perverse".

Muslim bodies also opposed it. The minority government of Narasimha Rao developed cold feet and sought refuge in the Supreme Court through a Presidential Reference under Article 143 of the Constitution.

The question put to the Supreme Court by the government was whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid. A five-judge bench of Justices MN Venkatachaliah, JSVerma, GN Ray, AM Ahmadi and SP Bharucha addressed the question but decided not to answer it.

What Supreme Court Said in 1994

The Supreme Court, instead, gave an explanation of the Aydohya Act in 1994. The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment, also struck down a clause of the Ayodhya Act which sought to bring to an end to all legal proceedings related to the title dispute of Ayodhya before any court. The Ayodhya Act, however, stayed.

The Supreme Court supported the idea of building a Ram Mandir, a mosque, a library and other amenities on the acquired land. But as the Supreme Court's view on a Presidential Reference is not binding on the President, the Ayodhya Act, proved to be a dud.

Sixteen years later, the Allahabad High Court pronounced its judgment on the title suit. It divided the 2.77 acre land among three parties -- Ram Lalla (the infant deity), the Nirmohi Akhara (fighting for the Hindu side) and the Sunni Waqf Board (representing the Muslims).

Multiple petitions were filed in the Supreme Court challenging the sociological settlement of the title suit by the Allahabad High Court in the Ayodhya case. The final hearing is likely to begin in January or February next year in the Supreme Court.

What is happening now?

Will Narendra Modi government bring an ordinance to build a Ram temple in Ayodhya? Chorus for the same has grown louder after the Supreme Court on Monday, October 29 showed no urgency to hear the appeal against the Allahabad High Court order on the title suit.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), its associate outfits and BJP leaders have raised the noise level for building a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. The Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that a new bench would decide the date for commencement of hearing on the title suit.

The RSS said if the Supreme Court doesn't deliver an early verdict, the Modi government should bring a law to remove hurdles in the way of giving land for a Ram temple in Ayodhya. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) was more assertive saying that the Hindus could not wait for eternity for a verdict by the Supreme Court.

BJP leaders Subramanian Swamy and Giriraj Singh (also a minister in the Modi government) demanded an ordinance for early construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. The Congress and the Communist Party of India asked the Modi government to wait for the Supreme Court order in the matter.

Speaking for the government, Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad played safe saying people want early settlement of the title suit and that the Centre has full faith in the Supreme Court.

Also Watch | Is ordinance for Ram Temple possible?