New Delhi: Supreme Court has given its verdict on Ayodhya case. The court has decided to give the disputed land to Ramlala, while the alternative land of 5 acres will be given to the Muslim side elsewhere. The court has ordered the central government to form a trust for the construction of the temple within three months. A bench of 5 judges was present in the court. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi started reading the verdict at 10.30 am and continued to study for 30 minutes. Let's know the big things about the decision…
As soon as the proceedings of the Supreme Court began, a decision was first taken in Case No. 1501, Shia vs Sunni Waqf Board case. The Shia Waqf Board's claim in this case was rejected. The court upheld the 1946 decision.
The Supreme Court rejected the Nirmohi Akhara claim in the Ayodhya land dispute. The court said that the claim was filed after the deadline of 6 years. The court has said that Nirmohi has not been able to prove his claim. Nirmohi Arena is also not a serviceman. Ramlala is considered by the court as the main party. That is, one of the two Hindu parties has rejected the claim. Ramlala is a juristic person. Rama cannot give this status to birthplace. Archaeological evidence cannot be ignored. This was done with complete transparency on the order of the High Court. The demand to dismiss him is wrong.
On the Ayodhya case, the judge said - Masjid is said to be made of 1528, but when it is made, it does not matter.
The court has said that the ASI could not tell whether the disputed structure was built by breaking the temple. What was happening there from 12th century to 16th century was not proved.
The court has said that the Sunni Waqf Board changed its claim in the debate. First said something, later the composition found below is called Idgah. It is clear that the Babri Masjid was not built on empty land. There was a huge composition below. That composition was not Islamic. The artifacts found there were also not Islamic. The ASI described a 12th-century temple there. The old structure was used in the disputed structure. Touchstone, pillar etc. were seen.
The Supreme Court said - We cannot deny the right to consider the place of Namaz as a mosque. The Places of Worship Act of 1991 talks about saving religious places. The Act is an example of India's secularism.
The court said - the place is Nazul's land but the state government has said in the High Court that it does not want to claim the land. The court cannot explain the hadith.
The judge has said that the court has to see that the faith of one person does not take away the right of another. Masjid is said to be made in the year 1528, but it does not matter when it was made. The statue was placed on December. The place is the land of Nazul. But the state government has said in the High Court that it does not want to claim the land.
The Supreme Court said that it is clear that the Babri Masjid was not built on empty land. There was a huge composition below, that composition was not Islamic. The artifacts found there were also not Islamic.
The court has said that an old claim under a disputed structure alone cannot be considered a Hindu claim. Muslims claim that until 1949, after the formation of the mosque, they used to offer Namaz continuously, but there is no evidence of this happening till 1856-57.
The court said that the British government recognized the right of Hindus there. In 1877, another route was opened for him. No evidence of Muslim prayers being stopped in the interior.
The court said that it is necessary to give alternative land to the Sunni Waqf Board. The central government created a trust in 3 months.
The Supreme Court has said that the Central Government should make rules for the management of trust. Made rules for temple construction. The inside and outside should be given to the trust. The Muslim side got 5 acres of alternative land. Either give the center from the land acquired in 1993 or the state government should give it somewhere in Ayodhya. We are giving land to the Muslim side using the special powers given under Article 142. The government should also consider giving appropriate representation to Nirmohi in the trust.