Ayodhya verdict: Key observations of Supreme Court (Read Full Judgement)
SC cleared the way for the construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya and directed the Centre to allot 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in an unanimous verdict on Saturday, cleared the way for the construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya and directed the Centre to allot 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
While delivering the Ayodhya verdict, the judges referred to a report by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), which they said confirmed that a structure existed underneath the mosque but did not specify whether it was a temple.
Read Full Judgement- Ayodhya-Judgment.pdf
The following are the key observations made in the 1045 page long unanimous judgment:
1. The Central Government shall, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, formulate a scheme pursuant to the powers vested in it under Sections 6 and 7 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993.
2. Possession of the inner and outer courtyards shall be handed over to the Board of Trustees of the Trust. Possession of the disputed property shall continue to vest in the statutory receiver under the Central Government.
Directions regarding alternate plot for Mosque
Simultaneously, with the handing over of the disputed property to the Trust … a suitable plot of land measuring 5 acres shall be handed over to the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The land shall be allotted either by: (a) The Central Government out of the land acquired under the Ayodhya Act 1993; or (b) The State Government at a suitable prominent place in Ayodhya
The Sunni Central Waqf Board would be at liberty, on the allotment of the land to take all necessary steps for the construction of a mosque on the land so allotted together with other associated facilities.
3-way bifurcation by High court unsustainable
Three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable. Even as a matter of maintaining public peace and tranquillity, the solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible. Dividing the land will not subserve the interests of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity.
On allotment of alternate land to Muslims
The allotment of land to Muslims is necessary because though on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims.
Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who have been deprived of the structure of mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law.