Ayodhya Verdict | Ayodhya Judgement: Understanding the Supreme Court judgment

The Supreme Court in a unanimous verdict on Saturday cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya, and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque. Here’s a look at the important aspects of the landmark judgment that analysed the claims in the Ram Janmabhoomi- Babri Masjid case.

History of Ayodhya dispute and claims

 
The Supreme Court starts its judgement with a reminder: “This Court is tasked with the resolution of a dispute whose origins are as old as the idea of India itself.”
 
The Supreme Court relied on accounts from travellers Tieffenthaler and Montgomery Martin and corroborated by both Hindu and Muslim witnesses. It drew an inference of identifiable places for offering worship by Hindu pilgrims at the disputed site. The order notes that Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528 under the command of Babur. It also notes the communal riots between Hindus and Muslims necessitated the British administration to build a grill-brick wall in 1858.
 
The earliest court case regarding the dispute arose in 1885. The District Judge of Faizabad, in his judgment dated 18/26 March 1886, held that “it was most unfortunate that the Masjid should have been built on the land especially held sacred by the Hindus but since the construction had been made 358 years earlier, it was too late in the day to reverse the process.”
 
The Supreme Court observes that the Muslim account is conspicuously silent on worship prior to 1856 as opposed to the accounts of worship being offered by the Hindus. There is clear evidence of obstruction of worship, like 1934 riots, even after construction of the grill wall.  Yet, the restoration of the mosque and arrangements made for Pesh Imam’s service indicates some form of namaz continued to be offered in the mosque until 16 December 1949.
 
The Court notes evidence that Muslims offered Friday namaz at the mosque and had not completely lost access to or abandoned the disputed property.

A five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi unanimously decided that the disputed land must be given to Hindus and ordered the Centre to form a trust that would look into the management of the disputed site. This paves way for the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site. The bench also comprised Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

The Ayodhya case had a total of 14 litigants; here is what this verdict means for the major litigants:

Nirmohi Akhara

The Nirmohoi Akhara was one of the main litigants from the Hindu side in the Ayodhya case. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the disputed land in Ayodhya between the Nirmohi Akhara, the deity Ram Lalla and the Sunni Waqf Board.

In its verdict, the Supreme Court held that the Allahabad High Court was wrong in dividing the land into three parts. The court also dismissed the exclusive claim made by the Nirmohi Akhara over the entire disputed land. It has however left it to the government to take a call if the Nirmohi Akhara should be given any role in the trust that will be formed by the government as per the court’s order.

Shia Waqf Board

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the claims of ownership over the disputed site made by the Shia Waqf Board.

Sunni Waqf Board

As per the Supreme Court verdict, the Sunni Waqf Board will be allotted a 5-acre plot in Ayodhya where it is free to build a new mosque. The court has said this plot should be at a prominent location that will be identified by the centre and the Uttar Pradesh government.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had awarded one-third of the disputed land in Ayodhya to the Sunni Waqf Board. The Board is the main litigant from the Muslim side and in a statement has said it “welcomes” the order and will not file any review petition to challenge it.

Ram Lalla Virajman

The Supreme Court has held that the deity Ram Lalla is the rightful owner of the disputed land in Ayodhya. The court has asked the government to form a trust that will manage the land and any construction thereof. The 2.77 acre disputed and will be handed over to the trust which has to be formed within three months. The court has also asked the government to appoint a board of trustees.

Gopal Singh Visharad

Gopal Singh Visharad was among the first set of litigants to file a lawsuit in lower courts. In 1950, the first suit was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of the deity ‘Ram Lalla’. He sought enforcement of the right to worship of Hindus at the disputed site.

The Supreme Court in its verdict said, “The right of plaintiff in Suit 1 (Gopal Singh Visharad) to worship at the disputed property is affirmed subject to any restrictions imposed by the relevant authorities with respect to the maintenance of peace and law and order and the performance of orderly worship.”

Summary of the verdict

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously pronounced its verdict on 9 November 2019. The judgement can be summarised as follows:-

• The Court ordered the Government of India to create a trust to build the Ram Mandir temple and form a Board of Trustees within three months. The disputed land will be owned by the Government of India and subsequently transferred to the Trust after its formation.
• The Court ordered the entire disputed land of area of 2.77 acres to be allocated for the construction of a temple while an alternative piece of land of area of 5 acres be allocated to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque at a suitable place within Ayodhya.
• The Court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court’s decision, division of the disputed land was incorrect.
• The Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Masjid and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of law.
• The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a “structure”, whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.
• On objections raised with regards to ASIs various scientific claims by the Muslim parties, the Supreme Court observed, the contesting parties could have raised it before the Allahabad High Court as there were legal remedies available for the same. The apex court of India also commented that the ASI report which was submitted on behalf of the Allahabad High Court was not an “ordinary opinion”. At the same time, on The Historians report to the Nation authored by Aligrah historians and presented as an evidence, the court observed : “At the highest, this report can be taken as an opinion.”
• The ruins of an ancient religious structure under an existing building do not always indicate that it was demolished by unfriendly powers, the Supreme Court held in its 1,045-page judgment in the Ayodhya case.
• The Court said that Muslim parties, including the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land. It said that the Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to be the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama. The Court cited that iron railings set up in 1856–57 separated the inner courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard, and that Hindus were in exclusive possession of the outer courtyard. It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner courtyard of the mosque.
• The Court ruled that the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara could not be upheld and it had no shebait rights. However, the court ruled that Nirmohi Akhara should be given appropriate representation in the Board of Trustees.
• The Court rejected the claim made by Shia Waqf Board against the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the ownership of the Babri Masjid.

On 12 December 2019 the Supreme Court dismissed all the 18 petitions seeking review of the verdict.

Sources:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Supreme_Court_verdict_on_Ayodhya_dispute
• https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/union-minister-nitin-gadkari-toll-plaze-booth-collection-removed-gps-imaging-technology-1780847-2021-03-18
• https://www.theleaflet.in/ayodhya-verdict-historical-legal-social-and-moral-implications/#

For more Judgements– CLICK HERE.

Get Lawyers Gyan in your Email & Join 10000+ Lawyers!!

Email Address

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Disclaimer: 

Lawyers Gyan has no control over above-listed items as it is directly from the customer or taken from other sources. Despite our best efforts, some of the content may contain errors. You can trust us, but please conduct your own checks too. In case of any discrepancy please write to lawyersgyaan@gmail.com.