Ayodhya verdict

The Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the Ayodhya – Babri Masjid land dispute case that will have far-reaching effects.

Here are the top 10 key takeaways from the landmark judgment in the Ayodhya case:

1. Supreme Court has granted the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla.

2. Supreme Court has directed the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government to allot an alternative 5 acre land to the Muslims at a prominent place to build a mosque.

3. The court has asked Centre to consider granting some kind of representation to Nirmohi Akhara in setting up of trust. Nirmohi Akhara was the third party in the Ayodhya dispute.

4. The Supreme Court dismissed the plea of Nirmohi Akhara, which was seeking control of the entire disputed land, saying they are the custodian of the land.

5. Supreme Court has directed the Union government to set up a trust in 3 months for the construction of the Ram mandir at the disputed site where Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992.

6. The Supreme Court said the underlying structure below the disputed site at Ayodhya was not an Islamic structure, but the ASI has not established whether a temple was demolished to build a mosque.

7. The court also said that the Hindus consider the disputed site as the birthplace of Lord Ram while the Muslims also say the same about the Babri Masjid site.

8. The court also said that the faith of the Hindus that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site where the Babri Masjid once stood cannot be disputed.

9. The Supreme Court also said that the 1992 demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid mosque was a violation of law.

10. While reading out its judgment, the Supreme Court said that the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board has failed to establish its case in Ayodhya dispute case and Hindus have established their case that they were in possession of outer courtyard of the disputed site.

Ayodhya verdict in Supreme Court

Here are 40-day hearing before the ‘Supreme Verdict’

Day 1: The Nirmohi Arena said that the disputed structure has been in the possession of the Nirmohi Arena on 2.77 acres for hundreds of years.

Day 2: Ram Lala Virajman argues that the faith of those who believe in Rama is evidence that Rama was born at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

Day 3: Ram Lala Virajman argues that no party had asked to divide the disputed site in the High Court, but the High Court divided the disputed site into three parts. Place of birth is very important. Janmani Janmabhoomi Swargadpi Gariyasi.

Day 4: Ram Lala Virajman’s lawyer K.K. Parasaran said that no particular shape of the deity is necessary in Hindu religious beliefs. Gods dwell in particles.

Day 5: Ram Lala’s lawyer CS Vaidyanathan argued that the birthplace is the deity and the birthplace cannot be shared because the deity cannot be divided.

Day 6: The Hindu party argues that the temple at Ram’s birthplace was demolished and if the mosque is demolished by the temple, Sharia law does not recognize such a mosque.

Day 7: Ram Lala Virajman’s lawyer claimed that the place where the mosque was built had a very large structure of the temple. The report of the Archaeological Survey of India is clear.

Day 8: The Hindu party argued that the evidence of the 12-century inscriptions and inscriptions found there was a huge Vishnu temple. Even after the mosque was built, Hindus worshiped there.

Day 9: The Hindu party said that if the birthplace is the deity, then the property is vested in it, that is, the property belongs to the deity and in such a situation no one can claim that land (birthplace). The deity cannot be alienated from their own property.

Day 10: Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing on behalf of Pujari Gopal Das Virasad, argued that he was the original party and had the right to worship at the birthplace.

Day 11: During Nirmohi Arena, it was argued that our claim is not on the title but our claim is that we are the Shebiyat (manager) of the temple located at the birthplace and our claim on the position.

Day 12: Argument of Nirmohi Akhara We manage the Dev place and want the right to worship.

Day 13: Nirmohi Arena argues that no Muslim entered the disputed structure after 1934. There was a temple there.

Day 14: The Hindu party’s lawyer said that there was no mention anywhere in Baburnama that Mir Baqi had built the mosque, in fact Aurangzeb broke the temple and built the mosque.

Day 15: The counsel for the Hindu party argued that according to Islam the other’s A mosque cannot be built by demolishing a place of worship. This mosque cannot be held under Islamic law.

Day 16: On behalf of the Shia Waqf Board, it was said that we want to give one third of that to Hindus.

Day 17: On behalf of the Muslim party, Rajiv Dhawan said that as far as the title shoot is concerned, in this case the historical argument has no meaning and if the owner of the property does not use the property, it will lose its ownership.

Day 18: Sunni Waqf Board said Babri Masjid was properly planned and idolized by deceit.

Day 19: The Muslim party did not oppose the management right of the Nirmohi Akhara but they never owned it.

Day 20: Sunni Waqf Board argues that we never refuse the right to worship and worship on Ram platform.

Day 21: Rajiv Dhawan argued that the mistake made on 22 December 1949 cannot be continued.

Day 22: Rajiv Dhawan said that he is being threatened. Now he is threatened on Facebook. His clerk has also been threatened.

Day 23: Muslim party argues that there is evidence of Allah written inside the mosque. Namaz continued to be recited there even after 1934 and there are many witnesses.

Day 24: Advocates for Muslim parties have stated that the birthplace is not a legal person.

Day 25: Rajiv Dhawan said that there is no denying that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya. But can a particular place be considered a legal person only on the basis of faith.

Day 26: The Muslim party said that from Ram Charit Manas to Ramayana, there is no mention of where Ram was actually born.

Day 27:The Muslim party said that in 1885 all action was taken for Ram Chabutara.

Day 27: Advocate for Muslim party said that justice was made in 1985 and agitation was organized by Kar Sevaks across the country and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad mobilized the movement and then the atmosphere was created across the country and Babri Masjid in 1992 Was demolished so that the reality could be erased and the temple built.

Day 29: Rajiv Dhawan argued that we respect Lord Ram. Honoring the birthplace, if Ram and Allah are not respected in this country, then the country will end.

Day 30: The Muslim party said that there is no objection in saying that Ram Chabutra is the birthplace, because three-three courts have already said this. But our claim is about the whole area.

Day 31: The counsel for the Sunni Waqf Board said that we did not accept at all that Ram Chabutara is the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Day 32: The Supreme Court Chief Justice said that both the parties should fix their argument deadline so that the hearing can be completed by 18 October.

Day 33: Muslim party said ASI report is a weak evidence. This report is entirely based on the hypothesis. As well as inference based conclusions.

Day 34: Counsel for the Muslim party, Shekhar Nafde, argued that the difference between the 1885 trial and the present case is the same, except that in 1885 a site at the disputed site was now claimed in full has gone.

Day 35: The Hindu party argues that Rama’s birthplace is a judicial personality.

Day 36: Ram Lala Virajman’s lawyer said that the structure under the mosque had evidence of lotus, paranala and circular shrine, which leads to the conclusion that it was a temple.

Day 37: Muslim party said no one is denying that Rama was born in Ayodhya. But the dispute is over the birthplace. He was not born under the middle dome.

Day 38: Rajiv Dhawan, the lawyer for the Muslim party, told the Supreme Court that why the court is asking all the questions to us, why not the Hindu parties?

Day 39: The Hindu party’s lawyer K Parasaran responded to the argument presented by the Muslim parties that Babur built a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Rama in Ayodhya and this has been a historical mistake that needs to be rectified.

Day 40: The Muslim party said that we have the right to construct again. We have the right to pray because the title belongs to us. Even the part of the platform is of the mosque itself.

Also See: Ayodhya Case Verdict: Meet the five Judges who deliver Historic Judgment


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here