Mumbai: Supreme Court passed its judgement over the disputed land in Ayodhya. The five-judge Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi read out a unanimous judgment and ruled in favour of the Ram Janmabhoomi and said there will be Ram Mandir at the disputed site and Muslims will be given an alternate 5 acre land for their mosque.
Some Important takeaways from landmark judgement are:
- The Supreme Court in its judgement has allocated the entire 2.77-acre land to Ram Janmabhoomi
- The Supreme Court in its judgement has ordered Central and State Government of Uttar Pradesh to allocate 5acre land for Masjid in a prominent region of Ayodhya.
- Supreme Court has directed the Union government to set up a trust in 3 months for the construction of the Ram Mandir at the disputed site where Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992.
- As Supreme Court has ordered to make a trust for Ram Mandir, it has also asked Centre to consider granting some kind of representation to Nirmohi Akhara in setting up of the trust.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the plea of Nirmohi Akhara, which was seeking control of the entire disputed land, saying they are the custodian of the land.
- The Supreme Court said, according to the Archaeological Survey of India The Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure and the underlying structure was not an Islamic structure.
- The Supreme court also said that the Hindus consider the disputed site as the birthplace of Lord Ram while the Muslims also say the same about the Babri Masjid site.
- The Supreme court ruled that the Allahabad high court’s judgement on the case in 2010 about dividing the place into three parts was wrong.
- The Supreme Court also said that the 1992 demolition of the 16th century Babri Masjid mosque was a violation of the law.
- While reading out its judgment, the Supreme Court said that the Uttar Pradesh’s Sunni Central Waqf Board has failed to establish its case in Ayodhya dispute case and Hindus have established their case that they were in possession of outer courtyard of the disputed site.