Listen to Story
Advertisement
The five-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi pronounced its verdict in a special hearing called on Saturday, amidst tight security and a jam-packed courtroom. (Photo: PTI)
New Delhi , UPDATED: Nov 10, 2019 05:42 ISTAfter decades of mandir-masjid politics in the country, the Supreme Court of India gave the land to God on Saturday (November 9). Lord Ram- the deity Ram Lalla, was recognised as a legitimate legal personality and given the title to the entire 2.77-acre disputed property in Ayodhya.
The five-judge Constitution bench of CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer pronounced its verdict in a special hearing called on Saturday, amidst tight security and a jam-packed courtroom.
advertisementWhat the landmark judgment was
The disputed property will be managed in Lord Ram's name by a temple trust that has to be set up by the central government within three months, under the provisions of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993. The trust will have the responsibility for managing the site, construction, maintenance and management of the Ram temple.
In addition, the Supreme Court declined to release the 'undisputed' 67 acres that had been acquired by the central Government in 1993, and this additional land will also be handed over to the trust for the temple.
The court rejected the claim of the Nirmohi Akhara as the shebait- sole manager of the temple but said that the Akhara will be included in the trust/board that will be created for the management of the temple.
How SC bench arrived at the judgment
In what is widely being seen as a 'win' for the Muslim petitioners, the court in its 1045 page verdict also held that the ASI report has failed to link the construction of the erstwhile Babri mosque to the destruction of an existing temple. In a detailed section of the judgment, the bench discussed the extent of archaeological evidence present, with artefacts and pillars dating from the 8th, 9th and 11th and 12th centuries AD being identified by the ASI.
The bench held that while the 'preponderance of evidence available' showed that there was a pre-existing structure at the disputed site with pillars indicating the presence of a large structure underneath the former mosque, the ASI had not conclusively said that the mosque was constructed after demolishing an existing temple, as there was a gap in the timeline of the artefacts and structure.
The court also clearly criticised the desecration of the mosque in 1949 when the locked doors of the disputed structure were opened, and idols of Ram were illegally placed inside during the disturbances of 1949.
The judgment has gone through various kinds of evidence- archaeological, documentary and witness statements- to show that there was a "continuing and undisputed belief" of the Hindus in the existence of the Ram Janmabhoomi at Ayodhya.
While developing the legal reasoning for their decision, the judges, who gave a unanimous 5-0 judgment in favour of the claims of the Ram Lalla, noted that the Muslim petitioners were not able to show they were in possession of the property in an "exclusive and exclusionary" manner.
What's in it for Muslims
To "right the wrong", the court ordered that the Sunni Waqf Board will be given 5 acres of land in Ayodhya for the construction of a mosque. However, it has been left to the BJP government at the Centre and state level to decide where this land will be allotted- whether part of the 77-acre 'mandir-masjid' area will be given, or would they be granted land in some other "prominent place" in Ayodhya.
How opposition reacted
The Congress said it respects the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute and is in favour of the construction of a Ram temple there.
advertisement"Today's decision of the Supreme Court has opened the doors for Ram temple construction, but it has also permanently closed the doors for BJP and others to enjoy power by playing politics with the country's faith," he said.
He said everyone should respect the law and said the All India Muslim Law Board has also agreed to deeply respect the judgment.
Meanwhile, AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi said the Supreme Court judgment is a "victory of faith over facts" and suggested rejection of the alternative five-acre plot given for construction of a mosque.
Owaisi said he personally felt that the offer of the five acre plot to the Muslim side should be rejected. "I endorse AIMPLB's stand on the judgment. Our fight was for justice and legal rights. We don't need 5-acre land as a charity," he said in a tweet.
Asserting that there cannot be any compromise vis-a-vis construction of a mosque, Owaisi, however, said he would go with the decision of All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB).
advertisementWhat PM Modi said
The Supreme Court judgment on the Ayodhya issue has heralded a "new dawn" and should not be seen as win or loss for anybody, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, stressing that India's credo of unity in diversity was visible in its totality as all sections of society accepted the verdict with an open heart.
Addressing the nation after one of the most important and most anticipated verdicts were pronounced, PM Modi invoked the fall of Berlin wall on November 9, 1989 as he urged people to shun any fear, bitterness and negativity and come together to build a new India.
Pakistan objects to timing of verdict
Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi objected to the timing of the Ayodhya verdict, which coincides with the inauguration of the Kartarpur corridor, saying he was "deeply saddened" at the "insensitivity" shown at such a joyous occasion.
India hit out at Pakistan saying Islamabad's "pathological compulsion" to comment on its internal affairs with the obvious intent of spreading hatred is condemnable.
"We reject the unwarranted and gratuitous comments made by Pakistan on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India on a civil matter that is completely internal to India," Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said.
advertisementSituation normal but UP, Delhi still on alert
Uttar Pradesh heaved a sigh of relief as the day passed off peacefully amid continued vigil on the law and order situation by authorities after the Supreme Court's verdict, which had kept the holy town on edge for years.
No untoward incident was reported in Delhi following the Supreme Court's verdict in the Ayodhya case, even as police continue to remain alert to deal with any law and order situation.
(With inputs from Aneesha Mathur)
