Muslims lose case as Indian top court gives Ayodhya disputed site to Hindus for Ram Mandir

The Supreme Court on Saturday pronounced that the Ram Temple will come up in the disputed land in Ayodhya, while Muslims will get an alternative land measuring five acres. 

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 the mosque. The Court observed that the destruction of the Babri mosque in 1992 was a violation of the law.

The Central Government has been directed to formulate a scheme in this regard within three months. A Board of Trustees must be set up for the construction of the temple.

However, the Court clarified that the rights of Ram Lalla to the disputed property is subject to maintenance of law and order and communal harmony.

Thus the Court decreed the suit filed on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla, and partly decreed the suit filed by Sunni Waqf Board.

The verdict was read out by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, over half an hour.

Delivering the Ayodhya verdict, CJI Ranjan Gogoi on Saturday underlined that law must stand apart over political considerations, religion and beliefs.

Justice Gogoi, who heads the five-judge Constitution Bench set up to decide the decades-old land dispute in the Ramjanmabhoomi Babri case, said the court, as a secular institution, should uphold all beliefs and religion

Justice Gogoi, who estimated that it will take half-an-hour to read out the operative portion of the verdict, has said that the constitution bench's verdict on Ayodhya is "unanimous".

The 10 key points from verdict

• The Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment ordered that the disputed land in Ayodhya must be given to Hindus. 

• It said a suitable plot of 5 acres must be granted to Sunni Waqf Board to set up a mosque. The disputed land at Ayodhya must be given to a Board of Trustees for the construction of a Ram temple. It asked the Centre to formulate scheme within 3 months.

• The court said faith and belief of Hindus is undisputed.

• The court said faith and belief of Hindus is undisputed.

• Title over land cannot be decided on the basis of faith and belief, but as per law.

• The court said there is enough materials to prove the Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land and that It was not an Islamic structure It said damage to Babri mosque was violation of law.

• Documentary evidence cannot be said Muslims have been able to establish possessionary rights of the inner courtyard.

• The court dismissed the claim of Nirmohi Akahara, a religious denomination, which had sought directions to construct a Ram temple on the disputed land in Ayodhya and wanted the management rights of the premises

• The court said law must stand apart over politics, religion and beliefs.

• The court said Babri masjid wasn't built on a vacant plot
   

Background

The five judges bench of the Supreme Court had reserved judgment on October 16 in the case after a marathon hearing of forty days.

This is the second-longest hearing in the history of Supreme Court after the landmark hearing in Keshavananda Bharati case which lasted 68 days.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

What The Allahabad HC Held In Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Dispute?

The day to day hearing commenced on August 6, after CJI declared that the mediation talks by the SC-appointed panel of Justice F M Khalifullah, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu failed.

The Hindu parties have contended that the entire 2.77 acres of land has juristic personality as the janmasthan of Lord Ram. The Muslim side has countered this by saying that the mere belief that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram will not confer it juristic personality.

The parties have referred to the reports of historians, travelers and gazetters and land documents prepared during British rule to base their respective claims. References were also made to the report of the Archaeological Survey of India on the point whether the mosque was built over an existing temple.

Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Dispute: All You Need To Know About The Civil Suits

After the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were given liberty to file written submissions on moulding the relief.

The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, in its written submission, has pressed for the need to provide for the governing and administration of the decreed property and sought the setting up of a body of persons or a trust to ensure that the purpose of the decree is carried out in letter and spirit. The Mahasabha has asked the Court to establish a trust so it can be determined "who will be entitled to and liable to raise construction over such land".

The Muslim parties had given their note in a a 'sealed cover'. The Hindu side has taken objection to the sealed cover note submitted by the Muslims.

Later the Muslim parties filed a statement urging the Supreme Court to mould the relief in the case in such a fashion to reflect the 'constitutional values that this great nation espouses'.

"The decision by this Hon'ble Court, whichever way it goes, will impact future generations. It will also have consequences for the polity of this country", said the joint statement filed by seven Muslim parties in the case.

"Since the judgement of this Court will have far reaching implications, it is for the Court to consider the consequences of its historic judgement by moulding the relief in a fashion that will reflect the constitutional values that this great nation espouses. We hope that the Court, in moulding the relief, upholds our multi- religious and multicultural values in resolving the issues confronting it.

Moulding the relief is the responsibility of this Court, which itself is the sentinel of our Constitution.

When moulding the relief, this Court must also consider how future generations will view this verdict", the statement by Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan said.

On the last date of hearing, there were reports that the Chairman of the Sunni Waqf Board had agreed for settlement by giving up the claim for mosque in the case.

These reports were denied by the Muslim parties in the case by issuing a joint statement.

"We are taken aback by the media reports attributed by Mr Shahid Rizvi, Advocate on record that U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board was willing to withdraw the claim on site of the Babri Masjid"(sic), the statement said.

The statement concluded by saying

"Accordingly, we must make it absolutely clear that we the appellants before Supreme Court do not accept the proposal made which has been leaked out to the Press, nor the procedure by which the mediation has taken place nor the manner in which a withdrawal of the claim has been suggested as a compromise."

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.