A Brief History Of Shri Ram Temple Dispute - Part 5

Analysis of the Excavation Report and Verdict by the Allahabad High Court –

During the excavation on and around the disputed site by the Archaeological Survey of India as ordered by the Allahabad High Court in 2003, many pieces of evidence of the existence of a large Hindu structure were found. The reports were handed over to the court after the completion of the excavation. On 30^th September, Allahabad High Court announced its verdict on four title suits relating to Ayodhya dispute. It stated that Ayodhya Land to be divided into three parts. ⅓ goes to Ram Lalla represented by Hindu Maha Sabha, ⅓ goes to Sunni Wakf Board and ⅓ goes to Nirmohi Akhara. On October 2010, after sifting through all the evidence placed before it, the Allahabad High Court, in an order that ran into over 8,000 pages, said that the portion below the central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and other Gods are placed in the makeshift temple belongs to Hindus. All three judges agreed that the portion under the central dome should be allotted to Hindus.

The judgment affirmed that the disputed land was the birthplace of Lord Rama as per the faith and belief of the Hindus, and the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, noting that it was not built in accordance with the tenets of Islam. After this verdict being non-satisfied, in December 2010, The Akhil Bhartiya Hindu Mahasabha and Sunni Waqf Board moved to the Supreme Court of India, challenging a part of the Allahabad High Court’s verdict.

Appeal to the Supreme Court and Its Verdict-

After the verdict of Allahabad High Court, which ruled that the disputed land be split into three parts. The site of the Ram Lalla idol would go to the party representing Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara was to receive the Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, and the Sunni Waqf Board to receive the rest. The court also ruled that the status quo should be maintained for three months. All the three parties appealed against the division of disputed land to the Supreme Court.

The hearing of this appeal continued for a long time, the hearing took a number of sessions over a period of 9 years. There were many factors that led to the delay of the verdict, such as possessiveness of the Supreme Court regarding the verdict as it was a sensitive issue. When the appeal was made in Supreme Court, Indian National Congress had its government in the Central, with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister, however, the major decisions of the government were taken by the party president Sonia Gandhi, taking the command of the nation in her hand indirectly. Congress always placed a lawyer against Shri Ram Temple in order to save their Muslim vote bank as a part of their vote bank politics. Some unofficial reports stated that congress used 24 advocates against the Shri Ram Temple which led to further delay in verdict and manipulation of cases. Anyways, Truth always Triumphs and that's the motto of our Justice authorities too, “Satyamev Jayate”. The case proceeded further with a slow rate and many obstacles. In 2014 when Bhartiya Janta Party formed government in central under the Leadership of Honorable Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi Ji, BJP members were eager for the verdict so they supported the court and promoted hearings of the case at a faster pace.

Safety Measures were taken before the Judgment

After several hearings and trials for peaceful verdict to prevail, The Supreme Court announced the date for the final hearing of the case. Following the announcement of the date of the final hearing, for 15 days preceding the verdict, restrictions were imposed in Ayodhya to prevent violence. Security arrangements were increased across India. Thousands of paramilitary forces and police troops were deployed in Ayodhya and surveillance of the region was carried out using CCTV cameras and drones.

Internet services were closed in several places in Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, while it was announced that a total of 31 districts and 673 individuals were being closely monitored. Section 144 of Code of Criminal Procedure of India which restricts assembly of 4 People in one place, was invoked in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh as well as in some major cities such as Bangalore, Bhopal, Jaipur, Lucknow, and Mumbai. A public holiday was declared for schools and colleges across the states of Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh, as well as Delhi, on the day of Verdict. Security was stepped up across various towns in Telangana; 20,000 personnel deployed in Hyderabad, mainly around the communally sensitive areas of the Old City including the Charminar and Mecca Masjid. According to reports, around 40,000 police personnel were deployed in Mumbai and 15,000 in Chennai as a precautionary measure. The Prime Minister made a public request for maintaining peace and religious harmony.

The Supreme Court held a final hearing on the case from 6 August 2019 to 16 October 2019. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court ordered the complete disputed land of 2.77 acres should be handed over to a trust to build the Shri Ram Temple. The order also stated that the trust to build the Shri Ram Temple should be formed within 3 months from the date of the verdict. It also ordered the state government to give 5 acres of land to Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque.

After this verdict of the Supreme Court, the government allotted land of 67 Acres of land in the surrounding region of the disputed land to build the Glorious and Sacred of Scared Lord Shri Ram Temple.

Summary of the Verdict –

The five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously pronounced its verdict on 9 November 2019. The judgment can be summarized as follows:

• The Court ordered the Government of India to create a trust to build the Ram Mandir temple and form a Board of Trustees within three months. The disputed land will be owned by the Government of India and subsequently transferred to the Trust after its formation.
• The Court ordered the entire disputed land of area of 2.77 acres to be allocated for the construction of a temple while an alternative piece of land of area of 5 acres is allocated to the Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of a mosque at a suitable place within Ayodhya.
• The Court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court’s decision, division of the disputed land was incorrect.
• The Court ruled that the Demolition of Babri Masjid and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was in violation of the law.
• The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid was constructed on a structure, whose architecture was distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.
• The ruins of an ancient religious structure under an existing building do not always indicate that it was demolished by unfriendly powers, the Supreme Court held in its 1,045-page judgment in the Ayodhya case.
• The Court observed that all four of the Janamsakhis state unambiguously and in detail that Guru Nanak made the pilgrimage to Ayodhya and offered prayers in the Ram temple in 1510-11 AD. The Court also mentioned that a group of Nihang Sikhs performed puja in the mosque in 1857.
• The Court said that Muslim parties, including the Sunni Waqf Board, failed to establish exclusive possession of disputed land. It said that the Hindu parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to be the birthplace of Lord Shri Ram. The Court cited that iron railings set up in 1856-57 separated the inner courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard and that Hindus were in exclusive possession of the Courtyard. It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner courtyard of the mosque.
• The Court ruled that the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara could not be upheld and it had no she bait rights. However, the Court ruled that Nirmohi Akhara should be given appropriate representation in the Board of Trustees.
• The Court rejected the claim made by Shia Waqf Board against the Sunni Waqf Board for the ownership of the Babri Masjid.

On 12 December 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed all the 18 petitions seeking review of the verdict.

So, this was the complete story of Shri Ram Temple from the Birth of Lord Shri Ram to the order of building the temple on his birthplace that we brought up to you.  The story was full of struggles and constant efforts by the members of Various Hindu Organisations and several individuals.

Thanks for reading our Article.

Subscribes us for more articles like these.


NOTE: References to all the parts of this article are placed together.
References - Click Here                                                                                 

<<Previous Part                                          1   2   3   4   5