In the annals of India’s legal history, the ‘Ram Mandir Ayodhya Judgment of Supreme Court’ stands as a defining chapter, In a historic turn of events, the Supreme Court of India delivered a momentous verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute on 9th November 2019. This judgment, which concluded decades of legal battles and socio-religious discord, marked a crucial milestone in the country’s legal and historical narrative.
Background:
The Ayodhya dispute had its roots in the construction of the Babri Masjid in the 16th century and the subsequent claims of the site being the birthplace of Lord Ram. The legal journey began with title suits filed, leading to a prolonged legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court.
The key parties involved in the Ayodhya dispute before the Supreme Court were:
1. Nirmohi Akhara: A Hindu religious denomination claiming the right to manage the worship at the disputed site.
2. Sunni Waqf Board: Representing the Muslim community, it claimed ownership of the Babri Masjid site and sought to rebuild a mosque.
3. Ram Lalla Virajman: The deity Lord Ram, through his legal representatives, claimed ownership of the land where the Babri Masjid once stood.
These three parties were at the center of the legal proceedings, with their claims and arguments forming the basis of the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Ayodhya dispute.
Constitution Bench:
Recognizing the gravity of the matter, the Supreme Court constituted a Constitution Bench to hear the appeals. The Bench that adjudicated the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute comprised the following five judges:
1. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi
2. Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde
3. Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
4. Justice Ashok Bhushan
5. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer
The primary parties involved included Hindu and Muslim organizations, each presenting their case with fervor and deep-seated beliefs.
1.Historical Dispute:
The judgment addressed the long-standing dispute over the Ayodhya site, acknowledging its historical and religious significance.
2. Archaeological Evidence:
The Supreme Court considered archaeological findings, including the presence of a Hindu temple beneath the Babri Masjid, supporting the claim of a pre-existing Hindu structure.
The excavation report in the Ayodhya dispute played a crucial role in the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Key points from the report include:
A. Evidence of Pre-existing Structure:
Archaeological findings indicated the presence of a structure beneath the Babri Masjid, suggesting the existence of a pre-existing Hindu temple or structure.
B. Hindu Artifacts:
Excavations revealed various artifacts with Hindu motifs and symbols, supporting the argument that the site had historical Hindu significance.
C. Structural Similarities with Temples:
The report highlighted architectural features similar to Hindu temples, further strengthening the claim of a Hindu structure predating the Babri Masjid.
D. Multiple Layers of Construction:
Excavations identified multiple layers of construction, indicating a long history of human habitation and religious structures at the site.
E. Pillars and Walls:
Discovery of pillars and walls with carvings and ornamentation resembling Hindu architecture suggested the presence of a Hindu temple.The excavation report provided archaeological evidence that influenced the court’s decision in recognizing the historical connection of Hindus to the disputed site.
3. Legal Ownership:
The court focused on legal ownership, determining that the land should be divided among the three main parties involved – the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara, and the Ram Lalla Virajman (representing Lord Ram).
4. Title to Hindus:
The court recognized the rights of Hindus to the disputed land, allocating a significant portion to the Ram Lalla Virajman for the construction of the Ram Mandir.
Read : Triple talaq Case
5. Compensation to Muslims:
The judgment ensured that the Sunni Waqf Board received an alternate piece of land for the construction of a mosque, addressing the historical grievances of the Muslim community.
6. Peaceful Resolution:
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution to the dispute, promoting communal harmony and national integration.
7. Rule of Law:
The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the rule of law and respecting legal processes to resolve complex and sensitive religious issues
8. Implementation:
Post-judgment, the government formed a trust, the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra, to oversee the construction of the Ram Mandir. This marked the practical implementation of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Conclusion:
The Ram Mandir Ayodhya judgment of the Supreme Court stands as a testament to the judicial process’s ability to navigate complex historical and religious issues. The Court’s balanced approach, grounded in evidence and constitutional principles, has set a precedent for the resolution of contentious matters, offering hope for communal harmony and legal clarity in the future.