Supreme Court have Pronounced Judgement in Ayodhya case

Today the Supreme court of India have pronounced the most awaited judgement in Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute.

In this judgement the Bench was comprising of five judge and those are Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Bobde, Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer held a special sitting today to pronounced the judgement.

what the Allahabad high court held in Ayodhya babri masjid dispute?

Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan, Shekher Naphade, Meenakshi Arora led the arguments for UP Sunni Waqf Board.

During the hearing, the Shia parties submitted that they were willing to abandon their claims in favour of Hindus. The Sunni Waqf Board opposed this by saying that Shias have no claims over the property, and that they had not taken any such stand before the high court.

The parties referred to “Baburnama” ( memories of Babur), Ram Charit Manas by Tulsi Das, passages in Ramayana, Skanda Puranan, 18th century writings of European missionary Joseph Tieffenthaler, 1854 Gazetter of East India Company by Edward Thornton, survey by A E Cunningham and Montgomery Martin, travelougue of English historian William Finch etc., during the hearing.

The key arguments made by the parties in the supreme court

The main key arguments made by the parties in the Ayodhya Babri masjid title dispute case are summarized below:-

Arguments by Ramlalla, Nirmohi Akhara etc.

The main hindu parties in the case were Ramlalla Virajman (the deity), Nirmohi Akhara and the legal representatives of Gopal Singh Visharad, a believer who filed a suit in 1950 seking right of worship in disputed land.

The main points urged by Senior Advocates K Parasaranand C S Vaidyanthanon behalf of the deity are:

• The entire disputed area of 2.77 acres is the Janmsthan, the birth place of Lord Ram.
• Janamsthan has a judicial personality of its own.
• It is the centuries old belief of millions of hindus that lordram’s spirit resides in the janamsthan. the faith of the devotees is itself the evidence that the janmasthan is the birthplace of lord ram.
• There cannot be adverse possession against or joint possession of Janmasthan, which by itself is a juridical personality. Janmasthan is indivisible.
• claim of possession can be based on ancient custom, religious practices and beliefs.
• Idol is not necessary for conferring jurist personality. In Hindu belief, objects other than idols, such as sun, rivers, trees etc., are given divinity in hindu faith.
• The archaeological survey of India report shows that the masjid was built on a land over a massive structure which dated back to 2nd century BC.
• ASI report showed that there were images of humans and animals inside the structure. Islamic faith prohibits depiction of such images in a mosque. So babri masjid cannot be regarded as a mosque as per Islamic tenets.
• Babri Masjid cannot be regarded as a mosque built in accordance with the tenets of Islamic law, which prohibits construction of mosque by demolishing other structures.
• Ancient texts and scriptures refer too Ayodhya as the birthplace of lord ram. there is unshakable fauth of devotees that it is the janamsthan. that by itself is the greatest evidence.
• Ayodhya, being the birthplace of lord ram, holds particular significance for Hindus. They believe that visiting the Jaanmstahn will help them attain moksha.
• The decree in 1855 suit doesnot operate as res judicata as the plaintiff Mahant Raghubar Das did not represent entire Hindus. Also, the claim in that suit was confined to the outer courtyard and chabuthara.
• The suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board in 1961 is time barred.

The key arguments by sunni waqf board and other muslim appellant

the arguments are:-

• mere belief of devotees can not confer title over the disputed land. references in ancient scriptures will also not give title.
• juristic personality can not be ascribed to a thing is no object of manifestation of belief, such as an idol. therefore, apiece of land cannot be given juristic personality without an object of manifestation of belief.
• Hinds claim is barred by res judicata as as the suit filed by Mahant Raghubar das in 1855 was dismissed.
• hindus were worshiping only in the outer courtyard. the idols were placed under the central dome of the mosque only in December 1949.
• the claim of possession by Hindu parties is based on a wrongful act of trespass committed on December 23, 1949, when idols were placed inside the mosque. Right of possession cannot be based on trespass.
• It is not possible to assess the legality of Babur’s acts after several centuries.
• court cannot enter into theological examination of the legality of the construction of Babri Masjid as per the Islamic law.
• Legality of mosque construction should be based on historical facts and not theology.
• ASI report has several contradictions. it is only an opinion. it does not conclusively state that masjid was built over a temple.
• In 1950’s suits, Hindus only claimed the right to worship, and not title. Title is claimed only in the belated suit filed in 1989 by the deity.
• ‘once a mosque always a mosque’ – there is no concept of abandoning of mosque. muslims stopped namaz in the mosque only after in 1950, when the property was attached by the district magistrate.

now in the end, after observing all the facts, issues and arguments, Supreme Court allows temple construction in disputed land; alternate plot of 5 acres for mosque.

In an unanimous verdict, the supreme court held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in Ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir.

At the same time, the court held that an alternate plot of 5 acres must be allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of mosque. This direction was passed invoking powers under the Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. the court observed that the destruction of mosque in 1992 was a violation of law. the act of placing idols beneath the central dome of the mosque in 1949 was an act of “desecration”, observed the court.

The central government has been directed to formulate a scheme fr construction of temple within three months. A board of trustees must be set up for temple construction. the center should do it based on its powers under the section 6 and section 7 of the acquisition of certain area at Ayodhya act 1993. appropriate representation must be given for nirmohi akhara in the trust. possession of the inner and outer courtyards shall be handed over to the board of trustees of the trust or to the body so constituted.