Ayodhya Verdict: SC terms Allahabad High Court’s 2010 judgment ‘legally unstable’ as it backs temple at disputed site
New Delhi | Jagran News Desk: The Supreme Court on Saturday pronounced the verdict on the long-standing matter of Ayodhya land dispute. The top court in its verdict ruled that an alternative land of 5-acres would be given to the Muslim parties to build a Mosque, while the disputed 2.77-acre land was given to the Hindu parties for the construction of Ram Mandir.
While pronouncing the verdict, the Supreme Court called the judgment of Allahabad High Court’s verdict of 2010, a ‘legally unstable’ judgment. The Allahabad High Court in its 2010 verdict had trifurcated the disputed 2.77-acre of land between the three parties equally.
Passing a unanimous verdict on the case, a five-judge constitution bench of the apex court presided by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi ruled, "The three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable. The solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible. Dividing the land will not subserve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity."
A 1045-page judgment came on a batch of petitions challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.
The 5-judge constitution bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi also comprising of Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, also directed the centre to form a trust to handle the construction of the temple, and also said that a five-acre land to be allotted to Sunni Waqf Board for the construction of Mosque.
The top court in its verdict also said that the Muslim parties failed to give any evidence to indicate that they have the exclusive possession of the inner structure of the Mosque’s dome. It, however, said that there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts.
The court added that there is "clear evidence" to establish that the Hindus worshiped in the outer courtyard. "As regards to 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," the judgment stated.
The bench said that justice would not prevail if it were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims. It also observed that the damage to the Babri mosque in 1934, its desecration in 1949 leading to the ouster of the Muslims and the eventual destruction on 6th December 1992 constituted a serious violation of the rule of law.
"They have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law," the judgment stated.
The contentions of Nirmohi Akhara, which was one of the litigants in the case, of being a shebait (devotee) were also rejected by the court. It, however, asked the Central government to give it an appropriate role of management in the trust formed by the government to oversee the temple construction.
The legal battle between the two parties dates back to the British era. The first appeal was, however, filed in 1950.
(With ANI Inputs)
Posted By: Talib Khan