The 70 year old conflict finally comes to rest. This is the case of Mohammed Siddique vs Mahant Suresh Das famously known as Ayodhya dispute.
In January 2019 the Supreme Court of India constituted a five judge constitutional bench headed by Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi to hear the case.In February the court tried mediation between both parties, as the mediation failed day-to-day hearing was scheduled.
In the landmark judgement of Ram janmabhoomi dispute the supreme court unanimously held that the entire disputed land of 2.77 acres in ayodhya must be handed over for the construction of Ram Mandir, position of the line will remain with the union government receiver. It also directed the centre and the Uttar Pradesh government to allot 5 acres of land to build a mosque.
TIMELINE:
1528: BABRI MASJID WAS BUILT
1853 TO 1859: FIRST COMMUNAL RIOTS
1949: IDOL OF RAM LORD WAS INSTALLED UNDER THE CENTRAL DOME OUTSIDE THE DISPUTED STRUCTURE
1992: DEMOLITION OF BABRI MASJID
2010 :ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT VERDICT
2011 :SUPREME COURT STAYS THE ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGHCOURT
FEBRUARY 2020: PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI ANNOUNCES IN THE PARLIAMENT OF 15 MEMBER TRUST FOR RAM MANDIR
AUGUST 2020 : BHUMI PUJAN AT AYODHYA
The new temple will be built in Nagara style architecture and will comprise three stories with pillars and domes.
BABRI MASJID: it was a triple domed mosque, built by Mir Baqi in the name of Babur. It was built in what is known as Jaunpuri style of architecture.
supreme court concluded that the masjid was built over structure which was "non Islamic".
Supreme court on the demolition of Babri masjid said "the destruction of the mosque took place in the breach of the order of the status quo and then assurance given to this court. The destruction of the mosque and the obliteration of the Islamic structure was an egregious violation of the rule of law"
Here it is important to take notice of supreme court mention that since the matter relates to immovable property it has adjudicated the claims in the title dispute 'purely on the basis of evidence and not on the basis of faith or belief.'
Evidences:
1. Archaeological survey of India findings
2. Textual sources (Ramcharitmanas and Ain-e-Akbari)
3. cleans of Hindu plaintiffs to the disputed property stands on a better food think that the evidence produced by Muslim plaintiffs
Supreme Court took the note of the counts of three European travellers Joseph Tiefenthaler (Italian traveller -stayed at ayodhya for five years and give details about his travel to ayodhya) , William Finch (arrived in India with William Hawkins in 1608 and he didn't find any buildings of importance of Islamic origin in ayodhya between 1608 to 1611) and Robert Montgomery Martin (was an Anglo Irish author and Civil servant, he wrote about British India and mention the worship of lord Ram in Ayodhya region and destruction of temples and the erection of mosques) .
Gods, corporate, rivers and animals have all been treated as juristic person by Courts (not an individual natural person but an artificially created person was to be recognized by the law)
⬇️
Not every deity is a legal person, lord Ram was however considered legal person (since he is considered a juristic person)
Rights deities enjoy as a legal person /entity:
1. May own property
2. Subject to pay taxes
3. Can sue and can be sued
4. Do not have fundamental or constitutional rights.
The Supreme court highlighted that the destruction of mosque and its demolition amounted to dispossessing the Muslims of the mosque and it should not have occurred in a secular nation like India.
therefore to remedy this wrong supreme court used its power under article 142, making it the first such case where it was invoked for a civil dispute over and immovable property, and allotted an alternative site of five acres in Ayodhya for construction of the mosque.
Hence the judgement tries to create a social harmony instead of passing a one sided judgment, it has also compensated the Muslim litigants.
The Supreme court again upheld the secular ethos of a multi-linguistic, multicultural diverse country like India. This judgement unlike any other judgement is not a victory of any one community but a reflection of a perfect secular state.