Babri Masjid/Ram Mandir Conflict: Supreme Court Verdict (3)
Updated: Sep 18, 2021
On the 9th of November 2019, The Supreme Court Verdict regarding the Ayodhya Conflict was declared. The disputed land was given for the purpose of building the Ram Mandir. For this purpose, the land was handed over to a trust, which has been created by the Government of India. The court also ordered the Centre/UP State government to allot an alternate 5 acres of land in another place to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
In 1950, a title suit was filed by Gopal Singh Vishrad seeking an injunction for Hindus to pray at the disputed site. A similar suit was filed by Parmhans Das shortly after Gopal Singh Vishrad’s, but he withdrew it later. A third suit was filed by the Nirmoi Akhara in 1959, claiming to be the custodian of the site and demanding that the charge be handed off to them.
After the demolition and political rallies of 1992-93, A fourth suit was filed for declaration and possession of the site by the Sunni Waqf Board. The Allahabad High Court bench began hearing the case in 2002, which was completed in 2010., in the judgment, the three judges of the Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2.77-acre land be divided into three parts. One-third going to the Sunni Waqf Board, another third to ‘Ram Lalla’ represented by Hindu Mahasabha the last one-third was allotted to the Nirmoi Akhara. The verdict was pronounced on 30 September 2010.
The judgement said that the disputed land was indeed the birthplace of Ram and per the Hindu belief and that the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a Hindu Temple.
The Supreme Court held a final hearing on the case from 6 August 2019 to 16 October 2019.
The result of which has been at the receiving end of mixed reactions and heavy controversy.
There was immense praise from various citizens for Justice Gogoi and his judgement, saying it was constitutional and made sure to pacify the needs of both parties involved. Others believe that the Hindu community deserved to get the land as the Muslims ‘needed to get a taste of their own medicine’, referring to the destruction of temples post the Mughal invasion.
Similarly, there has been a significant amount of dissent towards the verdict as well. There have been accusations of partiality and bribery. A prominent Muslim body, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a review of its ruling on the Ayodhya dispute, the first such plea since November 9. Filed through Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, argued that the court had effectively granted a mandamus (judicial writ) to destroy the Babri Masjid.
The Petition said “Had the Babri Masjid not been illegally demolished on December 6, 1992, execution of the order would have required destruction of an existing mosque to make space for a proposed temple… This court committed an error apparent by not awarding the disputed site to Muslim parties despite noting that the claims of Hindu parties were based on three outlining illegalities”
Shahi Imam of the Jama Masjid in Delhi, Syed Ahmed Bukhari, accepted the Supreme Court Judgement and said that the matter should not be stretched further. "We accept the court order and the Hindu-Muslim issue which had been going on for several years should come to an end now," Bukhari said in a press conference. Additionally, the Imam also said “Muslims of India want peace in the country. Before the court's order, all Muslims had said that they would accept the court's order, whatever it be."
In the eyes of another group, this entire conflict is trivial. There are more temples and Mosques in India than schools. They say that the government should focus on actual growth and development of the youth of India instead of focusing its energy on another place of worship.
What do you think about the verdict? Was it justified? Was the entire conflict worth the building of the Ram Mandir?
Let the controversy begin.
To anyone who wishes to read the Supreme Court Verdict – (https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/JUD_2.pdf)
Correspondent, S. (2019, November 10). Ayodhya verdict | Constitution can resolve knotty issues, says Modi. Retrieved from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ayodhya-verdict-constitution-can-resolve-knotty-issues-says-modi/article29932317.ece
Khan, A. (2016, November 03). Court awards two-thirds of Ayodhya site to Hindu parties, one-third to Waqf Board. Retrieved from The hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/Court-awards-two-thirds-of-Ayodhya-site-to-Hindu-parties-one-third-to-Waqf-Board/article10751918.ece?homepage=true
PTI. (2019, November 9). Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya: Jama Masjid Shahi Imam says matter shouldn't be stretched further. Retrieved from The Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/supreme-court-verdict-on-ayodhya-jama-masjid-shahi-imam-says-matter-shouldnt-be-stretched-further/articleshow/71984503.cms
TIMESOFINDIA.COM. (2019, November 9). Supreme Court's verdict on Ayodhya land dispute: 10 key takeaways. Retrieved from The Times Of India: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/scs-verdict-on-ayodhya-land-dispute-key-takeaways/articleshow/71980491.cms