The Supreme Court on 9th November 2019, Saturday, in a unanimous 5-0 verdict, had ruled that the disputed 2.77 acre land in Ayodhya would be handed over to a trust which shall be formed by the central government for the construction of a Ram Temple.
The five-judge bench that has been led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi stated that Hindus would get land subjected to some conditions, and asked the Centre in order to allow an alternative 5-acre plot in the direction of the Sunni Waqf Board relating to the building of a new mosque at either a "prominent" place located at the holy town in Uttar Pradesh or in the 67 acres adjacent to the disputed site which had been acquired by the government in the year 1993. The apex court held the “restitution” for the unlawful destruction of the Babri Masjid.
The Supreme Court also held that the mosque must be constructed at a "prominent site" and trust is required to be formed within 3 months for the construction of the temple at the site numerous Hindus believed Lord Ram was born. The site has been occupied by the 16th-century Babri mosque which was demolished by the Hindu mob on 6th December 1992. The destruction had led to communal riots.
The five-judge bench ruled that the possession of the disputed 2.77-acre land rights would be handed over towards the deity Ram Lalla, who is one of the three plaintiffs in the case. The possession, though, would remain with a central government receiver. The apex Court stated in the judgment that the Hindus have established their case that they were in the ownership of the outer courtyard as well as the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board had failed in order to establish its matter in the Ayodhya dispute.
However, the apex court held that the extensive nature of Hindus worshipping at the outer courtyard at the disputed land was there and the evidence suggested that the Muslims offered Friday prayers at the mosque which indicated that they had not lost the possession of the place.
It stated that regardless of the obstruction that was caused in the offering prayers at Mosque, the evidence suggested that there has been no abandonment in offering prayers. The court further stated that the underlying construction below the disputed land at Ayodhya was not an Islamic structure; however, the Archaeological Survey of India has not established whether a temple has been destroyed in order to build a mosque.
It also held that terming the archaeological evidence as only an opinion shall be a great disservice to the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). The court stated that the Hindus considered the disputed land as the birthplace of Lord Ram as well as even Muslims held this about that place.
The court stated in its 1,045-page judgment in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter that the faith of the Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the demolished structure is undisputed. The bench held that the existence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra, and Bhandar grih are the testimony of the religious detail of the place.
The Supreme Court stated however that the title could not be established depending on the faith and belief and they are only indicators for determining the dispute.
The judgment held that it would be essential to direct the central government in order to form a trust or any additional appropriate mechanism towards whom the land will be handed over.
The court stated that the scheme which shall be framed by the government would make necessary provisions relating to the functioning of the trustor body, which includes on matters regarding the management of the trust, the authorities of the trustees comprising the construction of a temple and every necessary, incidental as well as supplemental matters.
However relating to the 67 acres of land surrounding the politically sensitive disputed land of Ayodhya, the central government had said that it could be handed over towards the trust for management and development considering the scheme framed.
The court, however, said that the Nirmohi Akhara, which has been granted one-third title through the Allahabad High Court in the year 2010, doesn’t have a claim to title or even she bait or any managerial rights. But it applied its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution in order to direct that the Akhara, an order Hindu ascetics, would also get representation in the land as well as members could be added to the trust formed.
The judgment has been pronounced on 14 appeals which were filed in the Supreme Court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya shall be divided equally amongst the three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara as well as Ram Lalla.
PM Modi wrote on Twitter on Friday, a day before the judgment was made and said that whatever is the verdict of the Supreme Court on Ayodhya, it would not be a victory or defeat for anyone. PM appealed to his countrymen is that it must be the priority for everyone that this verdict should further strengthen the great tradition of peace, unity as well as the goodwill of India.
eStartIndia is the professional tech-based online and legal services providing a platform that help the clients to simplify the procedures of all kinds of registration, implementation, tax concerns and any additional legal compliance and services related to the business in India.
Get free consultation services for any registration with Our Top-skilled Experts. Visit our website www.estartIndia.com
Author:
Leave a Comment
Previous Comments