Ayodhya case closure: Disputed land to Hindus, alternative land to Muslims (Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010)

Oct 15, 2020

In 1950, Gopal Singh Visharad filed a title with the Allahabad High Court seeking an injunction to perform the puja (worship) at the disputed site. The case was filed shortly after by Paramhansa Das of Ayodhya. In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious institution, filed a third title suit, directing him to hand over the charge of the disputed site, claiming to be its patron. A fourth lawsuit was filed by the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the declaration and occupation of the site. The Allahabad High Court bench began hearing the case in 2002, which was completed in 2010. On 30 September 2010, the Allahabad High Court, a three-member bench of justices SU Khan, Sudhir Aggarwal and DV Sharma, said the Supreme Court of India rejected the petition to postpone the High Court's decision that the disputed land be divided into three parts. Should be done. The location of the statue of Ram Lala would go to a party representing Ram Lalla Virajaman (established infant Ram deity), Nirmohi Akhara was to get Sita Rasoy and Ram Chabutara and the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board to get the rest. The court also ruled that the status quo be maintained for three months. The three parties appealed to the Supreme Court against the division of the disputed land.

The final decision in the Ayodhya case was announced by the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019. The Supreme Court of India ordered the disputed land to be given to the trust for a temple to Ram Janmabhoomi (reputed as the sanctuary of the Hindu deity, Rama). The court also ordered the administration of Uttar Pradesh to give an optional 5 acres of land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board to construct a mosque as the replacement of Babri Masjid.

The Babri Masjid was demolished during a political rally, which turned into a riot on 6 December 1992. A land title case was later filed in the Allahabad High Court, whose verdict was pronounced on 30 September 2010. "In the judgment, the three judges Allahabad High Court ruled that Ayodhya's 2.77 acres (1.12 hectares) of land would be divided into three parts, with 1/3 parts Ram Lalla or Shishu Ram represented by the Hindu Mahasabha, 1⁄3 Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, and the remaining 1⁄3 NirmohiAkhara are going on. The decision confirmed that the disputed land was Rama's birthplace according to the faith and belief of Hindus and that the Babri Masjid was built after the demolition of a Hindu temple, noting that it was not built according to the principles of Islam."


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

  1. The court ordered the Government of India to form a trust to build the Ram Mandir temple and a board of trustees within three months. The disputed land will be owned by the Government of India and later transferred to the trust after its formation.
  2. The court ordered the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres of land to be allotted for the construction of the temple. In comparison, an alternative piece of area of ​​5 acres was allotted to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the construction of the mosque. Suitable location within Ayodhya.
  3. The court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling, the division of disputed land was wrong.
  4. The court ruled that the demolition of the Babri Masjid and the violation of the Babri Masjid in 1949 were in violation of the law.
  5. The Court found that archaeological evidence from the Archaeological Survey of India suggests that the Babri Masjid was built on a "structure" whose architecture was uniquely indigenous and un-Islamic.
  6. On objections made by Muslim parties to various scientific claims of ASI, the Supreme Court observed that the contending parties might have raised it before the Allahabad High Court as legal remedies were available for it. The apex court of India also remarked that the ASI report which was submitted by the Allahabad High Court was not "common opinion".
  7. At the same time, The Historians of the Nation presented the report written by the historians of Aligarh, and as evidence, the court said: "At its highest, this report can be taken as an opinion.
  8. The ruins of an ancient religious structure beneath an existing building do not always indicate that it was demolished by unfriendly powers, the Supreme Court held in its 1,045-page ruling in the Ayodhya case.
  9. The court observed that all four Jansankhanis (autobiographies of the first Sikh Guru, Guru Nanak) spontaneously and elaborated that Guru Nanak made a pilgrimage to Ayodhya and offered prayers at the Ram temple in 1510–11 AD. The court also mentioned that a group of Nihang Sikhs worshipped in the "Masjid" in 1857.
  10. The court said that the Muslim parties, including the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, failed to establish exclusive possession of the disputed land. It said that the Hindu side presented better evidence to prove that Hindus worshipped continuously within the mosque, considering it the birthplace of the Hindu deity Rama.
  11. The court stated that the iron railing installed in 1856–57 separated the inner courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard and that the outer courtyard was occupied by Hindus. It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner courtyard of the mosque.
  12. The court ruled that the suit filed by the Nirmohi Akhara cannot be upheld and has no authority. However, the court ruled that Nirmohi Akhara should be given proper representation in the Board of Trustees.
  13. The court rejected the claim made by the Shia Waqf Board against the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the ownership of the Babri Masjid.

On 12 December 2019, the Supreme Court dismissed all 18 petitions for review of the judgment.