Ayodhya / New Delhi. A 5-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court ruled on the Ayodhya case on Saturday. The Chairperson of the bench, CJI, read the decision for 45 minutes and said that trust should be created for the construction of the temple and its plan should be prepared in 3 months. The court ordered the disputed land of 2.77 acres to be given to Ramlala Virajman and asked that the Muslim side be allotted 5 acres of alternative land for the construction of the mosque.
CJI Gogoi said that Hindu-Muslims consider the disputed place as the birthplace, but the owner cannot be decided by faith. The bench said that the demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama, this belief of Hindus is unquestioned.
Highlights of Supreme Court’s decision
The Chief Justice said – We are giving the unanimous verdict. This court should accept the faith of religion and devotees. The court must maintain a balance.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said – Mir Baqi built Babri Masjid. It would not be appropriate for the court to enter theology.
The disputed land was marked as government land in the revenue records.
Ram Janmabhoomi is not a judicial person, whereas Lord Rama can be a judicial person.
The disputed structure was not a structure of Islamic origin. The Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land. The structure below the mosque was not an Islamic structure.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has confirmed the fact that there was a temple under the demolished structure. Describing archaeological evidence as merely an opinion would be an insult to ASI. However, the ASI did not establish the fact that the temple was demolished and built a mosque.
Hindus consider this place to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, even Muslims say the same about the disputed place. Books and ancient texts were written by ancient travelers indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama. Historical examples also indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama in the faith of Hindus.
The demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama, this belief of Hindus is unquestioned. However, ownership cannot be established on the basis of religion, faith. These can be signs of deciding a dispute.
It has been found that Hindus used to worship at Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoo even before the British era. Evidence recorded in the record suggests that the exterior of the disputed land was under the control of the Hindus.
The Supreme Court rejected the Shia Waqf Board’s special permission petition challenging the 1946 Faizabad court order. The Shia Waqf Board’s claim was over the disputed structure. This has been rejected.
The Supreme Court rejected the Nirmohi Akhara claim. The Nirmohi Akhara sought the right to manage the birthplace.
Allahabad High Court had asked to divide the disputed land into 3 parts.
In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had said that the 2.77-acre area of Ayodhya should be divided equally into three parts. One part will be given to the Sunni Waqf Board, the other to the Nirmohi Arena and the third to Ramlala Virajaman. 14 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.
This decision will further strengthen India’s peace, unity, and goodwill: Modi
Prior to the decision, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had tweeted – Whatever decision of Supreme Court will come on Ayodhya, it will not be a victory or defeat of anyone. My appeal to the countrymen is that it should be the priority of all of us that this decision should further strengthen the great tradition of peace, unity, and goodwill of India.
Keeping the honor of the judiciary of the country paramount, all the sides of the society, socio-cultural organizations, all the parties who have made efforts to create a harmonious and positive atmosphere in the past are welcome. Even after the decision of the court, we all have to maintain harmony together.
– Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 8, 2019
During the 40-day hearing, the arguments of the Hindu-Muslim side on 6 major points
Judge of the constitution bench
The constitution bench hearing the Ayodhya case is headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Apart from them, this bench includes Justice SA Bobode, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazir.
Ayodhya dispute: from 1526 till now
1526: According to historians, Babur came to India in 1526 to fight Ibrahim Lodi. Babur’s Subedar Mirbaki built a mosque in 1528 in Ayodhya. It was named Babri Masjid in honor of Babur.
1853: Communal violence erupted in Ayodhya for the first time during the Nawab of Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah. The Hindu community said that the mosque was built by breaking the temple.
1949: A statue of Ramlala is installed under the Central Dome at the disputed site.
1950: Hindu Mahasabha lawyer Gopal Visharad filed an application in Faizabad district court seeking the right to worship the idol of Ramlala.
1959: Nirmohi Akhara asserts ownership over the disputed site.
1961: The Sunni Waqf Board (Central) petitioned the court against the installation of the idol and asserted its right to the mosque and the surrounding land.
1981: Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board sues for land ownership.
1885: The district court of Faizabad rejected the application of Mahant Raghubir Das to put an umbrella on the Ram platform. Started hearing on the petitions filed for the ownership of the land.
2010: The Allahabad High Court ruled 2: 1 and divided the disputed site equally between the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ramlala in three parts.
2011: The Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court verdict.
2016: Subramanian Swamy filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking permission to build the Ram temple at the disputed site.
2018: Supreme Court begins hearing on various petitions filed regarding the Ayodhya dispute.
August 6, 2019: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court begins hearing on appeals of the Hindu and Muslim side filed against the Allahabad High Court’s decision.
16 October 2019: Hearing of the case completed in the Supreme Court.