Ayodhya Case Verdict

Why in news?

The Supreme Court (SC) delivered the verdict in the politically-sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

Click here to know more on the dispute

What primarily is the dispute?

The Hindus had maintained that the mosque was built atop a temple that Mughal emperor Babar’s men had demolished.
They claimed the site was the birthplace of Ram, the most worshipped deity of the Hindus.
The three main litigants in the case are the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Wakf Board and the Ramlalla Virajman.
The Nirmohi Akhara is a religious denomination that had sought directions to construct a Ram temple on the disputed land in Ayodhya.
It wanted the management rights of the premises to be given to it.
Ram Lalla (or the infant Ram) is represented by the Hindu Mahasabha.
It wanted the entire land to be handed over to them, with no part going to Muslim parties or the Nirmohi Akhara.
The Sunni Wakf Board is that which looks after religious properties.
It had demanded that the Babri Masjid be restored to the form that existed before it was demolished by the Hindu groups.
[The 16th century Babri Masjid was demolished by a Hindu mob on December 6, 1992.]
Fourteen appeals had been filed before the Supreme Court against a 2010 Allahabad high court judgment.
The HC had said that the disputed 2.77 acres should be equally divided among the three litigants.

What are the key observations of the Supreme Court?

SC says it will be inappropriate for it to play the role of theologian and interpret Hadees.
[Hadees/Hadith is a record of the traditions or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.
It is revered and received as a major source of religious law and moral guidance, second only to the authority of the Quran]
SC holds that Nirmohi Akhara is not the shebait [Shebait is that person who serves the deity, consecrated in the temple as a Devata]

SC also says Ramjanmabhoomi is not a juristic person.
SC says that the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report leads to conclusion that Babri mosque was not constructed on vacant land.
[There was underlying structure and it was not Islamic in nature. Artefacts recovered have a distinct non-Islamic nature.]
With this, Supreme Court upholds the view that there was a 12th-century structure.
The SC observed that faith was a matter of individual believer.
It thus held that the faith of the Hindus in Lord Ram could not be disputed.
However, a judgement cannot be decided on faith and beliefs, and it is decided on evidence.
In this case, no evidence has come on record to rule out the belief of Hindus in the place.
SC notes that there were places of birth identified in close proximity to the disputed land.
The existence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra and Bhandar Grih are the testimony of the religious fact of the place.
Extensive nature of Hindus worshipping at outer courtyard at site has also been there.
Balance of probabilities show Hindus continued to worship uninterrupted in outer courtyard despite putting up brick wall at site.
Nevertheless, SC accepts the HC view that Hindu idols were placed inside the central dome of Babri Masjid on Dec 22-23, 1949 night.

What is the ruling?

SC gave a unanimous judgment on the Ayodhya dispute.
It granted the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla.
The Centre will have to frame scheme under which it will constitute a trust within 3 months and hand over inner and outer court to trust.
Nirmohi Akhara should be granted representation in trust to be constituted by Government.
Muslims were unable to prove that they were in exclusive possession of inner courtyard.
SC says there should be alternate land given to Muslims to make good their loss of a mosque.
Sunni Wakf Board is to be granted 5 acres land in “suitable, prominent place in Ayodhya”.

Source: Indian Express, Livemint