Babri Masjid decision based on archaeology report

LAHORE: India's Supreme Court Saturday actually ruled in favour of Hindus on the basis of an archaeology report, which suggested there was credible evidence that Hindus used to worship in the outer courtyard of the 16th Century Babri Mosque much before 1857 when the British had actually come to rule this part of the world.

The court, therefore, substantiated the claim of the Hindus who had contended that this mosque at Ayodhya, a town in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh, had been built on top of a temple that had stood on the precise birthplace of Lord Ram.

The court noted that the faith of Hindus that Ram was born at the site of the now-razed mosque was undisputed.

Dismissing the plea of the Indian Sunni Waqf Board on a claim to the Babri Masjid, the ruling said: "Arguments were made on archaeology report. Archaeological Survey of India's credentials are beyond doubt and its findings can’t be neglected. On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it."

The unanimous decision of the Indian Supreme Court bench, which was headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and also comprised a Muslim arbiter, S. Abdul Nazeer, stated: "As regards 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 Muslims have offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century."

To the sheer dismay of the Muslims, the five-member bench asserted: "Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who 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. Having weighed the nature of the relief which should be granted to the Muslims, we direct that land measuring five acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the Central Government out of the acquired land or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya."

The top Indian court viewed that a temple be constructed on this 2.77-acre site for Hindus, while Muslims should get a five-acre alternative land to build a mosque.

"Court should preserve balance," Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said while reading out the judgment.

Contrary claims of Muslims and Hindus: An Indian media house "News18" reported: "Hindu groups saying the mosque had been built on top of a temple that had stood on the precise birthplace of Lord Ram, while Muslims contested this. However, the earliest recorded instances of violence over the land go back to the 1850s."

The media house maintained: "The court noted that the faith of Hindus that Ram was born at the site of the now-razed masjid is undisputed, and the existence of structures like Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutra and Bhandar Grih are testimony to the religious fact of the place."

The 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid and the ensuing violence:

The Babri Masjid was demolished by Hindu mobs in 1992, sparking riots that killed nearly 2,000 people.

Many Hindus, who went on a rampage some 27 years ago, had believed that the Babri Masjid was constructed on the ruins of a Hindu temple, which was demolished by "Muslim invaders."

Muslims said they offered prayers at the mosque until December 1949, when some Hindus placed an idol of Ram in the mosque and began to worship it.

The litigants: This particular case was fought between three main parties - two Hindu groups and the Muslim Waqf Board, which is responsible for the maintenance of Islamic properties in India.

The Hindu litigants were the Hindu Mahasabha, a right-wing political party, and the Nirmohi Akhara, which is a sect of Hindu monks.

The Allahabad High Court verdict of 2002:

On September 30, 2010, the Allahabad High Court had 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 (the installed infant Ram deity), Hindu ascetics' outfit Nirmohi Akhara to get Sita Rasoi and Ram Chabutara, and the Sunni Waqf Board to get the rest. All three parties then appealed against the decision in the Supreme Court.

On October 16, 2019, the Indian Apex Court had concluded 40 days of arguments on the pleas, after an earlier attempt for an out-of-court settlement through mediation was unsuccessful.

They filed a title dispute in the Allahabad High Court in 2002; or a decade after the mosque was demolished.

A verdict in that case was pronounced in September 2010.

In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court had determined that the 2.77 acres of the disputed land would be divided equally into three parts. The court ruled that the site should be split, with the Muslim community getting control of a third, Hindus another third and the Nirmohi Akhara sect the remainder. Control of the main disputed section, where the mosque once stood, was given to Hindus. The Indian Supreme Court had suspended this ruling in 2011 after both Hindu and Muslim groups had appealed against it.