Supreme Court Verdict: The Supreme Court gave its verdict on the 134-year-old Ayodhya temple-mosque dispute on Saturday. A five-member constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi unanimously ruled. Under this, the entire disputed Ram temple of Ayodhya was given for construction. The apex court said that a trust should be formed in 3 months for the construction of the temple and its plan should be prepared. The Chief Justice ruled that the Muslim side should be given 5 acres of alternative land to build the mosque, which is almost double the disputed land. The Chief Justice said that the demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama and this belief of Hindus is unquestioned.
After a 40-day hearing on the matter from August 6 to October 16, the Supreme Court reserved its decision. The 1045-page decision read by the constitution bench for 45 minutes on Saturday put an end to the most important and more than a century-old controversy in the country’s history. A bench of Chief Justice Gogoi, Justice SA Bobode, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S Abdul Nazir made it clear that the mosque should be built at a prominent place. The disputed land given to Ramlala Virajaman will be owned by the receiver of the central government. Supreme Court Verdict.
Key Points of Ram Mandir Verdict
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said – Ram Janmabhoomi is not a judicial person, whereas Lord Ram can be a judicial person. The demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama, this belief of Hindus is unquestioned. The disputed 2.77 acres of land should be given to Ramlala Virajman. It will be owned by the central government receiver. Temple construction should be planned within 3 months by building a trust.
Sunni Waqf Board
The court said- the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board failed to prove its claim on the disputed land. Despite the disruption of the prayer in the mosque, evidence suggests that the prayer never completely stopped. Muslims did not present any evidence indicating that they had full authority over the mosque before 1857.
The Supreme Court said- “Mir Baki built the Babri Masjid. It would not be proper for the court to enter theology. The Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land. The structure under the mosque was not an Islamic structure.”
Religion and Faith
The Supreme Court said, “The court should accept the faith of religion and devotees. The court should maintain a balance. Hindus consider this place to be the birthplace of Lord Rama. Muslims also say this about the disputed place. By ancient travelers Written books and ancient texts show that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama. Historical quotations indicate that the Hindu hopes Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama.
The bench said, “The structure under the mosque was not an Islamic structure. There was a temple under the demolished structure, this fact has been confirmed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The archaeological evidence is just an opinion. Dena would be an insult to the ASI. However, the ASI did not establish the fact that the temple was demolished and built a mosque. “
The Supreme Court stated, “The presence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutara and Bhandar Griha is evidence of the religious reality of the place. However, ownership cannot be decided on the basis of faith and belief. It is only indicative of settlement of the dispute. “
The Constitution Bench rejected the Nirmohi Akhada’s plea seeking the right to manage the birthplace. However, the court asked the Center to give some form of representation to the Nirmohi Akhara in the trust built for the temple construction.
Shia Waqf Board
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 was rejected.
Allahabad High Court had Said 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.
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.
- 1989: Allahabad High Court asked to maintain status quo at disputed site.
- 1992: Disputed structure demolished in Ayodhya.
- 2002: Allahabad High Court begins hearing on petitions filed for the ownership of disputed structure 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 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.