RAM LALLA COMES HOME, A NEW MASJID TO RISE

SC calls Babri’s demolition a crime, but says Hindus’ claim on land is stronger 5 judges pronounce unanimous verdict

In an unprecedented case based on faith and belief, the Supreme Court on Saturday “unanimously” paved the way for the construction of Lord Ram’s temple at Ayodhya as it rejected the Muslim claim over the disputed site and handed over the entire 1,500 square yard of the “composite” disputed area comprising the inner and the outer court yard of the now demolished Babri Masjid to a trust that would construct the temple and would be set up by the Central government in next three months.

The disputed land would remain in the custody of the statutory receiver till the Trust is formed and the land handed over to it. The court said that the Central government would be at “liberty to make suitable provisions in respect of the rest of the acquired land by handing it over to the trust” for its management and development.

The verdict was delivered by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi who along with Chief Justice designate Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer had heard the matter for 40 days starting on August 6 and concluding on October 16 when judgment was reserved.

The hearing was rooted in a batch of petitions challenging September 30, 2010, Allahabad High Court judgment in which the disputed site was divided into three parts with Hindu litigants — the Idol of Ram Lalla and Nirmohi Akhara getting one part each and Muslims’ Sunni Waqf Board the third.

The top court described the High Court judgment as “legally unsustainable”.

Handing over the entire disputed site for the construction of Lord Ram’s temple, the top court ordered giving Muslims a “suitable” five-acre plot either by the Central government out of the acquired 67 acres of land or by the Uttar Pradesh government at a “suitable prominent place in Ayodhya.”

The court said that both the creation of trust and handing over the entire disputed site to it and giving Sunni Waqf Board five acres of land would be done simultaneously.

Justifying the allotment of land to Muslims, the court said, “The allotment of land to the Muslims is

necessary because though on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims …”

“… the Muslims were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque on 22/23 December 1949 which was ultimately destroyed on 6 December 1992. There was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims,” said the court.

The court said that the Sunni Central Waqf Board would be at liberty on the allotment of the land to take all necessary steps for the construction of a mosque on the land allotted together with other associated facilities.

The court ordered giving Sunni Waqf Board five acres of “suitable” land at Ayodhya taking recourse to its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

TODAY IS the day to forget any bitterness one may have; there is no place for fear, bitterness and negativity in new India NARENDRA MODI,

Prime Minister

IT IS A moment of fulfilment for me because God Almighty had given me an opportunity to make my own humble contribution to the mass movement L.K. ADVANI,

Veteran BJP leader

THE SUPREME Court’s verdict has come. We are in favour of the construction of Ram temple. This judgment also closed the doors for BJP and others to politicise the issue. RANDEEP SURJEWALA

Congress spokesman

On the inner court yard on which Babri Masjid stood since 1528 till December 6, 1992 when it was demolished, the court said. “As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857.”

Rejecting the Muslim claim over the disputed site under the three domes of the now demolished Babri Masjid, also described as inner court yard, the court said: “The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century. After the setting up of the grill-brick wall, the structure of the mosque continued to exist and there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts.”

Recalling that the Babri mosque was “desecrated” on the intervening night of 22/23 December, 1949, and the exclusion of Muslims from “worship and possession” of the mosque, the court said: “The ouster of the Muslims on that occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive them of their place of worship.”

The court further noted that after the entire disputed site was taken over and receiver appointed in 1950, the worship of Hindu idols placed in the inner courtyard right under the central dome of Babri Masid was permitted.

Saying that the Muslims have been “wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago”, the judgment says, “during the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship.”

Noting that the Hindus have not brought on record any document showing the conferment of the title of the disputed site to them and had just produced records showing grants received by them for maintaining the mosque, the court said, “This document, even if it is accepted as authentic, indicates a grant for specific purposes and does not confer the title to the disputed land.”

The Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century. After the setting up of the grill-brick wall, the structure of the mosque continued to exist and there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts.” — THE SUPREME COURT 5-judge bench