AYODHYA CASE SUMMARY

In India, there has been a protracted political, historical, and socioreligious discourse surrounding the Ayodhya land dispute for many years. The subject of contention is a piece of property in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which is believed by Hindus to be the birthplace of the god Ram.

Some legends state that the location was once home to a Hindu temple that was destroyed to make way for the Babri Masjid mosque. Muslims, on the other hand, assert that the land belonged to them and that Mir Baqi, acting under Babur’s orders as the first Mughal emperor, had the mosque constructed on it in 1528.

Ayodhya case: Overview

The Supreme Court of India in the ayodhya dispute case rendered its decision on November 9, 2019, bringing an end to the protracted wait. After nearly seven decades from the beginning, the case has finally reached its destination. The whole country was waiting tensely for the decision. The two groups’ tensions were raised. Administrators are aware of the need to prevent violence in the wake of the decision. Nonetheless, the general public has accepted the ayodhya verdict, in contrast to the 2010 one that raised similar hopes but ultimately failed.

Ayodhya case summary: Pre Independence

The ayodhya case history pre-independence is:

• Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528 and is credited to Babar, the First Mughal Emperor. The Mughal emperor Babur’s ruler, Mir Baqi, built the Jaunpuri-style mosque in 1528. It featured three domes.
  
• In 1885, Mahant Raghbir Das filed a petition with the Faizabad court seeking permission to erect a temple next to the Babri Masjid. The request was denied.

Ayodhya case summary: Post Independence

The ayodhya case history post-independence is:

• In 1949, there were mysterious Lord Ram idols inside the mosque. The Muslim side maintained that the idol was their creation, despite the Hindus’ desire to worship it. The idol was inside the building when the management sealed it after there was violence.
  
• In 1959, Nirmohi Akhara filed a plea requesting ownership of the disputed land.
  
• The status quo was upheld by the Allahabad High Court, which took up jurisdiction over the title dispute in 1989.
  
• In 2002, the Allahabad High Court began to hear the title suits. The Allahabad High Court directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to conduct excavations at the contested site.
  
• In August 2003, the ASI filed a study claiming to have found remnants of a large building that stood in front of the Babri Masjid. In 2010, the High Court issued a majority ruling that stipulated the contested property should be divided among Muslims, Hindus, and Nirmohi Akhara in three equal parts.
  
• In 2011, in response to the parties’ cross-appeals, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the high court’s decision.
  
• A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi returned in 2019 to hear the title appeals, but he suggested starting with mediation.

Ayodhya case summary: ayodhya verdict by the Supreme Court

• A five-judge panel of the Supreme Court ruled that the disputed land must be transferred to a trust in order to allow for the construction of the Ram Janmabhoomi temple.
  
• The Supreme Court in the ayodhya verdict decided that the Hindu god Ram Lalla Virajman was the legitimate owner of the contested 2.77 acres of land, paving the way for the construction of the Ram temple.
  
• The Central and Uttar Pradesh governments were ordered by the Supreme Court to provide Muslims with five acres of alternative land in a conspicuous location so they could construct a mosque.
  
• The Center was asked by the court to think about providing Nirmohi Akhara with some kind of representation in order to establish a trust. The third party involved in the dispute in Ayodhya was Nirmohi Akhara.
  
• Nirmohi Akhara, who claimed to be the custodian of the disputed lands, filed a plea with the Supreme Court, but it was denied.
  
• The Supreme Court mandated that the Union government set up a trust within three months so that the Ram Mandir could be built on the disputed property where the Babri Masjid was destroyed in 1992.
  
• While the Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) did not determine whether a temple was destroyed to make room for a mosque, the Supreme Court declared that the structure beneath the contentious location in Ayodhya was not an Islamic building.
  
• The court further stated that while Muslims claim the same thing about the location of Babri Masjid, Hindus believe the disputed site to be the birthplace of Lord Ram.
  
• The Hindus’ belief that Lord Rama was born on the disagreed with site where Babri Masjid once stood was deemed unchallengeable by the court.
  
• The Supreme Court further ruled that it was illegal to demolish the 16th-century Babri Masjid mosque in 1992.
  
• The Waqf Central Sunni Council of Uttar Pradesh had not proven its case in the Ayodhya dispute, the Supreme Court said during the reading of its ruling, and the Hindus had proven that they were the rightful owners of the site’s outer courtyard.
  
• The Court further ordered the government to create a trust that would oversee the construction of a temple in Ayodhya and to develop a plan within three months.

Because of the peculiar history of the Ayodhya Ram Mandir, the Ayodhya case has been one of the most complex socio-political cases that the Indian judiciary has dealt with. The conflict persisted for more than fifty years. Due in large part to the case’s sensitivity and the involvement of both Muslims and Hindus, the Supreme Court heard arguments in this Ayodhya temple case for an extended period of time. Following a protracted process, on November 9, 2019, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that brought an end to this unusual and convoluted case by attempting to appease both the Muslim and Hindu parties.

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf