Ayodhya Verdict

Ayodhya
This judgment was noted for it being long-drawn and was found to be driven with a lot of
emotions and religious sentiments coming into play, with episodes where any bit of
coherence was almost impossible to find. This movement that was motivated with the
concept of RamJanmabhoomi at the forefront sparked with the demolishment of the Babri
Masjid in 1992 was labelled to be an embodiment of the ‘annexationist propaganda of faith’
and rightly so.
In 16th century, the Babri Masjid was built during the reign of the Mughal Emperor, Babur.
It was locally believed that Babur’s Generals demolished a temple that existed in that site
before the Masjid was constructed.
Many academicians have argued that local traditions, tales and other beliefs should not be
taken into consideration while a decision was made with regards to important matters of land
acquisition like this.
The Masjid was unlawfully demolished by the Kar Sevaks in December, 1992, based on the
abovementioned local belief.
Thlocal belief regarding Lord Ram’s birth place, was upheld by a 3-judge bench of the
Allahabad High Court in 2010. The High Court ordered an equal partition of the site occupied
by the Masjid.
In the subsequent year, upon appeals by the Sunni Waqf Board and multiple other parties to
the case appealed to the Supreme Court Allahabad High Court’s order was subsequently
stayed.
It was fixed by the end of 2017 that February, 2018 would mark the commencement of the
final hearing on this case. Another interesting aspect of the case was the importance it laid on
documents in Persian and Arabic from the 16th century which proved to be the few sources of
information with regards to the occupants of the site which has been a topic of dispute for
more than 2 decades now.
Charting a Timeline :
16th Century- Construction of Babri Masjid
1994- In the year 1994, there was a contention raised before thewith regards to the acquisition
of land in and around Babri Masjid. It was also subsequently ruled by the apex court that
mosques were not essential or integral to Islamic religious practices. It was also added that
Namaz could be offered even in the open and that it was not necessary that it had to be in a
mosque.
2010- It was decided by the Allahabad High Court in a 2010 ruling that the land was to be
divided into 3 parts and this was done in a bid to settle this land title dispute case. However,
this decision was not welcomed by the parties involved in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case
and hence was further appealed before the Supreme Court to reach finality with regards to the
issue at hand. This appeal before the Supreme Court was heard by a 3-judge bench headed by
Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dipak Misra and the issues discussed in the 1994 ruling, sprout
up, once again.
The Appellant parties to the case requested the case to be referred to a larger bench in order to
reconsider the 1994 ruling. However, this request was not taken into consideration and was
refused by the Supreme Court. In support to this stand taken by the Supreme Court, they
mentioned that the 1994 ruling was not to influence the land title dispute as the later was
mainly in the context of acquisition of the land and nothing more.
It is also found that the proposal to build a Ram Mandir at the Ayodhya site was an important
promise made by the BJP in their election manifesto. Whatever the decision of the Supreme
Court was to be, it was predicted that it would be quite decisive in either providing or not
providing sufficient support to the building of the Ram Mandir at the specified site.
The 2010 decision of the Allahabad High Court which voted for a tripartite division of the
land under dispute was not satisfactory to all the parties. The whole dispute boils down to one
single question as to whether the Babri Masjid was built over a temple which was previously
dedicated to Lord Ram.
Ayodhya case in the Supreme Court`s 2019 Landmark Judgment and is also the 2nd longest
hearing ever which went on for 40 days.
Rapid Action Force Personnel have been deployed in the state to prevent any outbreak of
violence. Prohibitory orders have been issued in Ayodhya considering the safety and security
of Ayodhya- Section 144 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which is Power to
issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.
- The Archaeological Survey of India did not say anything about the demolition or about a
Ram Temple. It only said some things have been found which resemble the temples of
northern India.

Ayodhya Verdict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ayodhya Verdict

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ayodhya Verdict

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ayodhya

16th Century- Construction of Babri Masjid

issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.

You might also like