The demolished structure is Lord Ram’s birthplace: SC

The day of November 9, 2019, was etched in golden letters in the history of India. On this day, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic verdict, bringing an end to a dispute that had lingered for more than five centuries, making it one of the most crucial moments in the country’s history. After the contentious structure in Ayodhya was demolished on December 6, 1992, the matter was subjected to the complete judicial process. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, leading a five-member constitutional bench, pronounced this unanimous decision. This judgment not only cleared the fog of five centuries but also provided answers to lingering questions in the minds of the people.

While delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi stated that the Ram Janmabhoomi site is not a judicial entity, whereas Lord Ram could be considered a judicial personality. The demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Ram, this belief of Hindus is undisputed. The disputed 2.77-acre land should be given to Ram Lalla and its ownership will remain with the receiver of the central government. A trust should be formed within 3 months and a plan for the construction of the temple should be made, he said. The Chief Justice ruled to give 5 acres of alternative land to the Muslim side for building the mosque, which is almost double the disputed land

After hearing the matter for 40 days from August 6 to October 16, 2019, the Supreme Court had reserved its decision. The Constitution Bench’s 1045- page verdict read for 45 minutes, ended the political, historical and socioreligious dispute of Ayodhya. The bench of Chief Justice Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice S Abdul Nazeer made it clear that the temple should be built at an important place only and the ownership of the disputed land given to Ram Lalla Virajman will remain with the receiver of the Central Government.

CLAIMS OF THE SUNNI WAQF BOARD AND BABRI MASJID REJECTED

The Supreme Court stated that the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Waqf Board failed to establish its claim on the disputed land. Despite evidence indicating a conflict over worship in the mosque, it was shown that prayers were never completely discontinued. Muslims did not present any evidence demonstrating that they held full rights over the mosque before 1857.

The court said that Mir Baqi built Babri Masjid and it was not built on vacant land. The structure beneath the mosque was not an Islamic structure. The Supreme Court also said that it is very clear that the 16th-century threedomed structure was demolished by Hindu Kar Sevaks who wanted to build a Ram Temple there. This was a mistake that should have been corrected.

The Supreme Court said that justice would not prevail if the claims of those Muslims who were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque were ignored. This court... must ensure that a wrong committed is remedied. Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of Muslims who’ve been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed. To correct the mistake, the Centre should give 5 acres of land for the construction of a mosque at an important place in holy Ayodhya.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA SAID, THERE WAS A TEMPLE HERE

The Supreme Court said “The court should accept the religion and faith of the devotees. The court should maintain a balance. Hindus consider this place to be the birthplace of Lord Ram. Muslims also say the same about the disputed place. Books written by ancient travellers and ancient scriptures indicate that Ayodhya is considered the birthplace of Lord Rama. Historical examples provide evidence that Ayodhya has been revered as the birthplace of Lord Rama in the faith of Hindus.

The bench said that “the structure that was under the mosque was not an Islamic structure. There was a temple under the demolished structure; this fact has been confirmed by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI). However, ASI did not establish the fact that the mosque was built by demolishing the temple. The presence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra, and Bhandar Griha is evidence of the religious reality of this place. However, on the basis of faith and belief, “The ownership cannot be determined. It is only indicative of the settlement of the dispute.”

The bench said that the disputed land was marked as government land in the revenue records. There is evidence that Hindus worshipped at Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi even before 1857 when it was a British-ruled Awadh province. The evidence on record shows that the outer portion of the disputed land was under the control of Hindus. The Supreme Court thus ruled in favour of Ram Lalla.

RAM LALLA FOUGHT THE CASE, FORMER JUDGE BECAME A GUARDIAN

Devkinandan Aggarwal was a judge of Allahabad High Court from 1977 to 1983. After retirement, as a friend of Ram Lalla (a minor), he filed a case in the court saying that Ram Lalla should be made a party in the case because Ram Lalla is present in the disputed building and at present, he is in possession of the said building. After this, the High Court made Ram Lalla (idol) a party in the case.

BUTA SINGH HAD SUGGESTED TO MAKE RAM LALLA A PARTY

The suggestion to make Ram Lalla Virajman a party in the Supreme Court was not made by any BJP or Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader, but it was suggested by the then Home Minister Buta Singh. Many media reports, quoting VHP leaders, revealed that it was Buta Singh who advised them to meet former lawyer and Attorney General Lal Narayan Sinha, an expert in civil matters in Patna. In 1988- 89, when the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was at its peak, the then Home Minister Buta Singh explained to the VHP leaders that the temple would not be built through the movement. That will happen either by Parliament making a law or by winning the case in court. He advised the VHP leaders that since no one in the court has demanded ownership of the temple land, whenever the decision is taken from the court, it will be in favour of the Sunni Waqf Board. In fact, before 1989, there were three cases before the court regarding Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi. In 1951, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a petition seeking the right to worship Ram Lalla. Whereas in 1959, the Nirmohi Akhara had demanded that they be given the rights to manage the temple. Neither of them talked about the rights on the Janmabhoomi. Only in 1961, a petition was filed by the Sunni Waqf Board demanding ownership of the mosque land.