The Supreme Court (SC), on Saturday, thanked the mediators’ efforts in the Ayodhya mediation panel and said they were very close to an “agreement.” A panel of mediators led by justice FM Khalifullah failed to reach a consensus in the case of Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid dispute. The panel’s inability to reach a consensus was followed by the Supreme Court that called a daily hearing of the case and concluded the hearing procedure in 40 days.
“They were very close to an agreement. Thank you for all your efforts,” the Supreme Court said during the verdict.
We respect the order of the Supreme Court but we are not satisfied, said AIMPLB lawyer Zafaryab Jilani. Ayodhya’s verdict has many contradictions, and we will seek a revision. Whatever legal recourse is possible, we will take, he added.
AIMPLB says it is not satisfied with some findings of the Supreme Court verdict and will keep the option of review open.
Relief for stressed homebuyers! The cabinet opens a window of Rs 25,000 million for stuck houses – Government Updates
It is a very balanced trial and is a victory for the people of India, says lead lawyer C S Vaidyanathan, who introduced himself as a deity at Ayodhya’s hearing.
We are not satisfied with the ruling and will make a call to request the review of the ruling, says the Sunni Waqf Board.
- With the SC that directs the creation of the Trust to build the Ram temple on the site in dispute, he practically expels Ram Janmasthan Nyas, backed by VHP, from the temple activities.
- SC appreciates the role of mediators Justice Kalifulla, mediator ace Sriram Panchu and Sri Ravishankar who were very close to the agreement.
The Center will deliver the disputed site to the Board of Trustees for the construction of the temple at the disputed site and a suitable alternative land plot measuring 5 acres in Ayodhya will be delivered to Sunni Wakf Board. In the Board of Trustees scheme, appropriate representation is given to Nirmohi Akhara, says the Supreme Court.
SC orders the allocation of alternative lands to Muslims to establish a mosque while decreeing the disputed site in Demand 5. SC says the Center will formulate a plan in 3 months to establish a board of trustees for the construction of the temple in the disputed structure.
SC says that the Allahabad higher court was wrong to divide the disputed site into three parts.
The desecration of the mosque by placing idols in 1949 and the demolition is contrary to the law, says the court.
The Sunni Wakf board could not claim adverse possession over the mosque, as it remained a disputed site between Hindus and Muslims, he says.
The destruction of the mosque in 1992 occurred in violation of the order of SC, he says.
For 325 years since the construction of the mosque until 1857, Muslims have not given evidence that they offer prayers in the disputed structure to the exclusion of Hindus, he says.
SC says that although there were obstructions, Muslims continued to offer namaz inside the inner courtyard. So, Muslims have not left the mosque, he says. But the documents show that before 1857 the Hindus were not forbidden to worship in the inner courtyard. The railings that segregate the outer and inner courtyard were made in 1857, he says. But Hindus always believed that Ram’s birthplace was in the inner courtyard of the mosque, says SC.
It is clearly established that while the Muslims offered prayer inside the inner courtyard, while the Hindus did the same in the outer courtyard, he says.
The mere existence of a structure under the mosque cannot lead to a title today, even if the SC discovers it was a Hindu temple, says SC.
The act of placing idols inside the central dome from December 22 to 23, 1949 has been challenged by the Sunni Wakf Board. SC says the Sunni Wakf Board demand is maintainable.
SC must be circumspect when extracting negative inference about what travelers did not see, he says.
Tales of travelers and historians mention about the faith of the Hindus that it is mentioned that the place is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The travelers account has to be read with caution, he says.
If belief and faith are justified, it is beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny, says SC.
The faith and belief that Ayodhya is Ram’s birthplace are indisputable, like that of Muslims to worship in the mosque, says the apex court.
The title of the land can be decided only with legal evidence, says SC.
There is adequate material for ASI to conclude that Babri Masjid was not built on vacant lots, says SC.
The ASI credential is beyond doubt and its findings cannot be neglected, says CJI.
The Law of Places of Worship reaffirms India’s commitment to protect the interest of the entire religious community, says CJI.
It is inappropriate for the court to enter the theology area, says CJI
SC dismisses the statement of the Shia Waqf Board against the Sunni Board in a complaint to Babri Masjid.
The trial is unanimous, says CJI.
The five judges put their signature on the sentence.
CJI Ranjan Gogoi is reading the verdict.
The Supreme Court will announce the verdict of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case at 10.30 a.m.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that the Supreme Court verdict in Ayodhya’s case on Saturday will not be a victory or defeat for anyone and urged people to ensure that the trial strengthens the tradition of peace, unity, and friendship of India.
“The verdict of the Supreme Court on Ayodhya will arrive tomorrow. During the last months, the Supreme Court heard the matter and the whole country watched it with curiosity. During this time, the efforts made by various sections to maintain peace and harmony are quite commendable, “he said.
In a historic sentence, the Supreme Court ordered the central government within a period of 3 to 4 months to formulate a scheme to establish trust and deliver the disputed site for the construction of a temple on the site and an adequate alternative measuring plot Five acre land in Ayodhya will be delivered to the Sunni Wakf Board.
So friends, hope you liked this article and you got some new information. Please tell me in the comments.