Ayodhya verdict today

Judgment at 10.30 am; Modi calls for peace; UP schools shut

The much-awaited judgment on the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya is set to be pronounced at 10.30 am on Saturday.

The Constitution Bench will pronounce its verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court’s September 30, 2010 judgment that trifurcated the disputed site in three parts, giving two parts to Hindu litigants — the idol of Lord Ram Lalla and Nirmohi Akhara — and one to Muslims.

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Friday held a meeting with the chief secretary and DGP of Uttar Pradesh and took stock of security arrangements ahead of the verdict, officials said.

In a series of tweets, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday appealed to the people that the priority should be to strengthen India’s tradition of maintaining peace and harmony after the verdict is pronounced on Saturday.

“The Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya would not be a matter of victory or loss. My appeal to countrymen is that it should be our priority that the verdict should strengthen India’s great tradition of peace, unity and amity,” he said.

As a precautionary measure, all educational institutions in Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Madhya Pradesh will remain closed on Saturday.

Elaborate security arrangements have also been made across the state and a special vigil is being maintained on social media. If required, checks would be imposed on it, the official said.

The five-judge bench, comprising CJI Gogoi, Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, had reserved the verdict on the continuous dispute on October 16 after hearing the arguments that lasted for 40 days.

Besides the argument based on faith and belief cemented by the oral, documentary evidence based on the travelogues of various traveller’s and the archaeological evidence, the core of the arguments was that the place under the central dome of the now-demolished Babri Mosque was the birth place of Lord Ram.

The Hindu litigants — represented by lawyers K. Parasaran and C.S. Vaidyanathan — have contended that the “Janmasthan” was itself a swayambhu — a manifestation of god-like holy temples Kedarnath and Badrinath.

However, the Muslim side pointed to the varying stand of the Hindu litigants who earlier has asserted that Ram Chabutra — located in the outer courtyard of the disputed site — was Lord Ram’s Janmasthan.

Initially, as many as five lawsuits were filed in the lower court. The first one was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of ‘’Ram Lalla’’, in 1950 to seek enforcement of the right to worship of Hindus at the disputed site. Later, the Nirmohi Akahara also moved the trial court in 1959 seeking management and shebaiti’ (devotee) rights over the

2.77 acre disputed land. Then came the lawsuit of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board which moved the court in

1961, claiming title right over the disputed property.

Besides the question of limitation in challenging the appointment of receiver of the disputed site in 1950, the hearing has witnessed divergence between deity of Lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas on one hand and the Nirmohi Akhara — Shebait of the temple over the title of the disputed site.

The Muslim litigant, mainly represented by senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan and Jafaryab Jilani, has contended that the mosque was in existence since 1528 and they were offering prayers till 1949 when idols were planted right under the central dome, (now demolished) of Babri Mosque on the intervening night of December 23-23, 1949.

The Muslim side too relied on the oral and documented evidence to buttress their claim over the title of the disputed site.

However, the Muslim side admitted that worship was being offered at Ram Chabutra and has conceded that if its claim to the title of the disputed site is upheld it would have no objection to devotees offering prayers at Ram Chabutra.

The apex court had on August 6 commenced dayto-day proceedings in the case as the mediation proceedings initiated to find the amicable resolution had failed.