IN A most historic judgement, the Supreme Court of India on Friday (October, 9, 2019) settled the controversial Ayodhya case by handing over the disputed 2.77 acre land to Ram Janmabhommi Nyas. At the same time, the court has asked the central government to give alternative 5 acre land to Sunni Board.
The judgement was delivered the finest bench of Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S A Bobde, Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S A Nazeer. All the judges had in the past too give superb judgements.
Members of both Hindu and Muslim communities across India widely welcomed the judgement, describing it as the historic one.
The verdict means the Ram temple will now come up at the disputed site in Ayodhya. The Centre has been asked to set up a temple trust which is expected oversee the construction of the temple. The Supreme Court has recognised the existence of Ram Lalla.
After the verdict, Vishnu Jain, lawyer, Hindu Mahasabha, said the disputed area has been given to Hndus. “The court asked the centre to set up a temple to oversee the construction of the temple. The court has asked Muslim petitioners should be given alternative 5 acre land at a prominent area in Ayodhya to build the masjid,” he said.
In Ayodhya, the epicentre of the case, television channels quoted members of both communities as saying that they hailed the Supreme Court verdict.
Activist Yogendra Yadav said on Times Now, ” A long distance dispute has been closed even though not everyone will bhappy. The SC has cleared said the demoliton of babri masjid of violation of the rule….” Yadav said certain reconcilation is being attempted. “I request everyone to accept it, let’s bow down before the judgement,” he said, adding that history has been corrected and hoped there would be no counter. “Let’s shape the narrative, like no winner and no loser,” he said.
Noted lawyer Sanjay Hegde said,”Let’s not quibble over semantics of x or y. the Supreme Court has displayed an act of cratstmaeship or statemenship. It has gone by the evidence before it. The court said prior to 1857, the situation was not clear. It went by the state of evidence and pleadings. It said the placing of idols was wrong, the demolition was wrong…it has taken into taken account the ground relaitities. It has put in a solution which will endure to end this underlying fissure. it has applied a plaster and let’s not try to pick under the plaster and try to open the wound.”
Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh said it was a historic verdict.
Addressing a press conference, members of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) said they respected the decision of the Supreme Court. “We appeal to citizens to maintain peace. We reiterate that tranquility should be maintained, there should be no protests,” the board said.
The board said they were not satisified with some findings of the judgement and will explore legal recourse. “There were several observations in the judgement which were important for secular fabric of the country. We are not entirely criticising the judgement, but only in part. The judgement was not as per our expectations,” the members said, adding that we might file a review but won’t say it for now.
AIMPLB Zafaryad Jilani the judgement has lot of contradictions. “The 5 acre land sought to be given to us has no value for us. We have right to differ from the judgement. But we will not say anything that will lower the dignity of the Supreme Court. We have the highest regard for the apex court,” he said.