The Supreme Court on Saturday, in a historic verdict, paved the way for the construction of a Ram Mandir at the disputed site in Ayodhya, blocking the more than a century-old case and arranging that the holy city Five acres of optional land should be given for the mosque. The court said that the disputed 2.77 acres of land will now remain with the receiver of the central government, who will hand it over to the trust to be created by the government. The bench asked the central government that a trust should be set up for the construction of the temple within three months. A five-member Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi (CJI Ranjan Gogoi) gave a unanimous verdict and said that this belief of Hindus It is undisputed that Lord Rama was born at the site concerned and he is symbolically the owner of the land. Sector secular fabric of Indian society had been dismantled. The judgment said that even then it is clear that the demolition of the 16th century three-domed structure by the kar sevaks who went to build the Ram temple was wrong and should be ‘redressed’. The top court’s decision was widely welcomed by Hindu leaders and groups, At the same time, the Muslim leaders said that they will accept the decision while stating the flaws in it. He also appealed to maintain peace and harmony. With this, political parties said that it is time to move forward.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted, while Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while appealing to the people to maintain peace, harmony, and unity, tweeted, ‘Ram bhakti or rahim bhakti, this is the time to strengthen the spirit of patriotism for all of us.’ The dispute over the site related to it is centuries old where the three-domed Babri Masjid was built by or on behalf of the Mughal emperor Babur. Hindus believe that the Muslim attackers destroyed the Ram temple located there and made it a mosque.
The demolition of the structure had sparked riots between Hindus and Muslims in the country and a large number of riots took place in North India and Mumbai in which hundreds of people died. Angry over the demolition and rioting, Muslim extremists carried out a series of bomb blasts in Mumbai on March 12, 1993, that killed hundreds of people. The decision said it was not linked to religion and faith. The court said that what went wrong, redressed Go and allot a five-acre plot for a mosque to Muslims in the holy city of Ayodhya. The court said that the disputed 2.77 acres of land would now be with the receiver of the central government, who would hand it over to the trust to be created by the government. Peeth told the central government that a trust should be created within three months for the construction of the temple. The verdict stated that it was not linked to religion and belief, but instead, the case was seen as litigation between three parties – Ramlala Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, and Sunni Muslim Waqf Board – over the ownership of land. Marathon hearing: The top court said in a much-awaited judgment, which was heard today after the marathon hearing that lasted for 40 days, “This dispute is over real estate.” The court determines ownership not on the basis of religion or faith, but on the basis of evidence. ‘This hearing is the second-longest hearing in the history of the Supreme Court. Justice Gogoi is set to retire on 17 November. Other members of the constitution bench included Justice SA Bobde, Justice Dhananjay Y Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer. The judgment said, ‘On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence which indicates that the Hindu in the outer part Worshiped which continued uninterrupted even before 1857 when the British annexed the Awadh region.
The constitution bench gave a verdict of 1045 pages. The bench said, “Muslims could not present any evidence which indicated that the mosque was fully in their possession before 1857”. It said, ‘The belief of Hindus is undisputed that Lord Rama was born in the place of demolished structure’. The constitution bench gave a verdict of 1045 pages. The court said that the Hindus had succeeded in proving that they had possession of the outer porch of the disputed structure and that the UP Sunni Waqf Board had failed to prove their case in the Ayodhya dispute. The bench said that it would be an injustice to the institution to merely state the evidence of the Archaeological Survey. Not only this, the presence of Sita Rasoi, Ram Chabutara, and Bhandar Griha is a testimony to the religious fact of this place. The Constitution Bench has distributed an equal amount of 2.77 acres of disputed land between the three parties- Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lala Virajaman. The hearing was completed on October 16 on 14 appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s September 2010 decision.
‘Government land in disputed land revenue records’ said that the High Court wrongly decided the matter of ownership by adopting the way of dividing the disputed land into three parts. The court said, ‘The disputed land is government land in the revenue records.’ It said, ‘The fact that the temple was under the destroyed structure is established from the report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the structure below was not an Islamic structure. ” Peetha said, ‘The history and culture of the country have been the center of the search for truth through political and spiritual content. This court was requested to decide on the issue of truth-finding where there were two questions affecting the freedom of one to affect the freedom of the other and violation of the rule of law. CS Vaidyanathan reacted to this decision and said, “It is very balanced and it is a victory for the people”. An advocate of the Sunni Waqf Board, Zafaryab Jilani, told reporters in this suit, “The decision has no significance for us, there are many contradictions.”
Nirmohi Akhara said that he has no regrets for rejecting his claim. In view of the decision, tight security arrangements have been made at sensitive places in the country. Union Home Minister Amit Shah appealed to all communities to accept the decision and maintain peace, saying that they should remain committed to ‘Ek Bharat, Shreshtha Bharat’ while Defense Minister Rajnath Singh said that this decision will strengthen the social fabric. Congress also said – Kong in favor of the construction of Ram temple Cress also said that she respects the verdict and is in favor of building the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Former VHP president Pravin Togadia said that giving Ram Lala’s birthplace to Ram temple for construction of Ram temple is an honor for the sacrifice of lakhs of workers. Prominent Muslim leaders also appealed to the people to maintain peace and harmony. However, he also expressed surprise at the decision. Abdul Qasim Nomani, the current Mohtamim Muftim of Darul Uloom, Deoband, said, ‘I was stunned by the decision. I believe there was enough evidence in favor of the mosque, but these were not considered. ‘According to the Delhi Police, prohibitory orders have been issued in the entire national capital in view of the decision, according to the Delhi Police. At the same time, an emergency campaign center has been set up in Lucknow, the capital of Uttar Pradesh, so that media, social media, and other sources can be monitored. Justices Ranjan Gogoi in a packed courtroom filled with lawyers and journalists Read it and it took them 45 minutes.