Supreme Court rules in favour of Ram Temple in Ayodhya, upholds Hindu claim

New Delhi: Ram Lalla Virajman will get a magnificent mandir at the spot where he was born in Ayodhya after a legal dispute spanning several decades. The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on Saturday ruled in favour of the Hindus in the over 70-year-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babari Masjid title dispute case ordering the allocation of the contested site to them for the construction of a temple.

The historic day for India – the largest secular democracy in the world – saw the end of a dispute spanning several centuries which had pitted the Hindu and Muslim communities against each other in the courts. The five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising of Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice SA Nazeer maintained the title suit of Ram Lalla and rejected the other petitions. But the court also ordered that 5 acres of alternate land should be provided to the Sunni Waqf Board at a prominent place in Ayodhya.

According to the Supreme Court judgement, the Centre must establish a Board of Trustees within three months for the construction of the Ram Mandir.

“Central government shall form in three to four months a scheme for setting up of a trust. They shall make necessary arrangements for the management of trust and construction of the temple,” Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said while reading out the verdict

While reading out its unanimous judgement in the politically-sensitive case, the bench said that Ram Janmabhoomi is not a ‘legal personality’ but a deity is a jurisdictional person.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that the faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the said site in Ayodhya stands “undisputed”.

“Hindus consider Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram. They have religious sentiments. Hindus have faith and belief that Lord Ram was born under the dome. The faith of Hindus that Lord Ram was born here is undisputed,” CJI Gogoi said while reading out the verdict.

The CJI stated that the titles cannot be decided on faith and belief but on the claims. “Historical accounts indicate belief of Hindus that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Ram,” Chief Justice Gogoi said.

Justice Gogoi said that the evidence shows that ‘Ram Chabutra’ and ‘Sita Rasoi’ were worshipped by the Hindus much before the British invaded.

“Evidence in the records show that Hindus were in the possession of the outer court of the disputed land,” Chief Justice Gogoi said. He further said that credentials provided by the Archaeological Survey of India are beyond doubt and its findings can’t be neglected.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Shia Waqf Board challenging the order of 1946 Faizabad Court. “We have dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by Shia Waqf Board challenging the order of 1946 Faizabad Court,” the top court bench said.

While reading out the verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case, the Chief Justice said, “Babri mosque was built by Mir Baqi. It is inappropriate for the Court to get into an area of theology.”

“There is adequate material in the Archaeological Survey of India report to conclude the following: Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure,” the bench said.

“The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure,” the SC bench said. The claim of the Nirmohi Akhara is only of management. Nirmohi Akhara is not a Shabait, the apex court ruled.

He said the court set up under the Constitutional scheme should defer from interfering with faith and belief of worshippers. The CJI said that secularism is the basic feature of the Constitution and the court should preserve balance.

The mosque built by Mir Baqi was on the order of Mughal emperor Babur, the top court ruled in its order.