The matter heard today by the Supreme Court of India is an appeal of the decision of the Allahabad High Court which divided the 2.77 acres of land between three parties i.e. Ram Lalla Virajman, Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. But, nobody was satisfied with the judgment, therefore moved to the Supreme Court.
The bench who delivered the judgment comprises of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, who will be the next Chief Justice of India, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S.Abdul Nazeer.
This is the second-largest heard case in the history of India. The first largest was Keshavnanada Bharti which was heard for 68 days.
Earlier, the matter was also referred to as Mediation but the parties failed to arrive at any settlement. The hearing in the case lasted for 40 days.
In 1992, right-wing activists tore down the 16th-century Babri mosque which they believed was built on the ruins of an ancient temple that marked the birthplace of Lord Ram. In the riots that followed, more than 2,000 people were killed.
Some of the key points taken of the historic judgment are:
- The judgment was unanimous.
- The Special Leave Petition filed by the Shia Waqf Board challenging the order of the 1946 Faizabad Court.
- Secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution; therefore the Court will not interfere with the faith and belief of worshippers.
- Supreme Court directs that the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara is barred by limitation.
- Supreme Court says that Sri Ram Lalla Virajman is a juristic entity, but Sri Ram Janambhoomi isn’t.
- The Court holds that the Babri mosque wasn’t constructed on vacant land. An underlying structure did exist. However, the ASI reports did not decline that the underlying structure was not of a specific temple.
- Titles cannot be established only on the basis of faith and belief.
- Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born right below the central dome of the disputed structure. Both Hindu and Muslim witnesses indicate that Hindus and Muslims were offering prayers at the disputed site.
- The Muslims Sunni Waqf Board couldn’t establish adverse possession on the disputed site. The disputed site is one composite whole, says Supreme Court. “No namaz after 1949,” the SC adds.
- The crux of the verdict states that the disputed site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh will be given to the Centre. The Centre will set up a trust within three months for the construction of a temple. The trust will manage the temple’s construction.
- The Muslim parties will be given a five-acre “suitable” plot in Ayodhya, either by State or by Centre.
- The Centre has been asked to grant representation in the trust to Nirmohi Akhara if deemed fit by the government.
- Ahead of the judgment in the sensitive case, security had been beefed up across the country. Special measures had been taken by security forces in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh where the disputed site is situated. Section 144 was imposed in Uttar Pradesh, among other parts of the country.