THE AYODHYA VERDICT

The Supreme Court on Saturday cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the
disputed site at Ayodhya, and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for
building a mosque. In one of the most important and most anticipated judgements in India's history,
a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi put an end to the more than a century old dispute
that has torn the social fabric of the nation.

In a 1024-page verdict, the SC said that the mosque should be constructed at a "prominent site" and
a trust should be formed within three months for the construction of the temple at the site many
Hindus believe Lord Ram was born.

Read the full text of the final verdict delivered by five-judge bench of the Supreme
Court in Ayodhya Land Dispute case:

(The text given here has been taken from page 920 through page 928 of the full SC verdict.
You can read the full text in the PDF given here)

Conclusion of title

The facts, evidence and oral arguments of the present case have traversed the realms of history,
archaeology, religion and the law. The law must stand apart from political contestations over
history, ideology and religion.

For a case replete with references to archaeological foundations, we must remember that it is the
law which provides the edifice upon which our multicultural society rests. The law forms the ground
upon which, multiple strands of history, ideology and religion can compete. By determining their
limits, this Court as the final arbiter must preserve the sense of balance that the beliefs of one
citizen do not interfere with or dominate the freedoms and beliefs of another.

On 15 August 1947, India as a nation realised the vision of self-determination. On 26 January 1950
we gave ourselves the Constitution of India, as an unwavering commitment to the values which
define our society.

At the heart of the Constitution is a commitment to equality upheld and enforced by the rule of law.
Under our Constitution, citizens of all faiths, beliefs and creeds seeking divine provenance are both

1
subject to the law and equal before the law. Every judge of this Court is not merely tasked with but
sworn to uphold the Constitution and its values.

The Constitution does not make a distinction between the faith and belief of one religion and
another. All forms of belief, worship and prayer are equal. Those whose duty it is to interpret the
Constitution, enforce it and engage with it can ignore this only to the peril of our society and nation.
The Constitution speaks to the judges who interpret it, to those who govern who must enforce it, but
above all, to the citizens who engage with it as an inseparable feature of their lives.

In the present case, this Court is tasked with an adjudicatory task of unique dimension. The dispute
is over immovable property. The court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on
the basis of evidence. The law provides us with parameters as clear but as profound as ownership
and possession. In deciding title to the disputed property, the court applies settled principles of
evidence to adjudicate upon which party has established a claim to the immovable property.

On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the
Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick
wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents
attaching to their control over it.

As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of probabilities to establish

worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857. The Muslims have
offered no evidence to indicate that they were in exclusive possession of the inner structure
prior to 1857 since the date of the construction in the sixteenth century.

After the setting up of the grill-brick wall, the structure of the mosque continued to exist and
there is evidence to indicate that namaz was offered within its precincts. The report of the
Waqf Inspector of December 1949 indicates that Muslims were being obstructed in free and
unimpeded access to mosque for the purposes of offering namaz.

However, there is evidence to show that namaz was offered in the structure of the mosque and the
last Friday namaz was on 16 December 1949. The exclusion of the Muslims from worship and
possession took place on the intervening night between 22/23 December 1949 when the
mosque was desecrated by the installation of Hindu idols. The ouster of the Muslims on that
occasion was not through any lawful authority but through an act which was calculated to deprive
them of their place of worship.

2
After the proceedings under Section 145 of CrPC 1898 were initiated and a receiver was appointed
following the attachment of the inner courtyard, worship of the Hindu idols was permitted. During
the pendency of the suits, the entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a
calculated act of destroying a place of public worship. The Muslims have been wrongly
deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.

We have already concluded that the 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. The disputed site admeasures all of 1500
square yards. Dividing the land will not subserve the interest of either of the parties or secure a
lasting sense of peace and tranquillity.

Suit 5 has been held to be maintainable at the behest of the first plaintiff (the deity of Lord
Ram) who is a juristic person. The third plaintiff (next friend) has been held to be entitled to
represent the the first plaintiff. We are of the view that on the one hand a decree must ensue in Suit
5, Suit 4 must also be partly decreed by directing the allotment of alternate land to the
Muslims for the construction of a mosque and associated activities.

The allotment of land to the 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 the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims, the
Muslims were dispossessed upon the desecration of the mosque on 22/23 December 1949 which
was ultimately destroyed on 6 December 1992.

There was no abandonment of the mosque by the Muslims. This Court in the exercise of its
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution must ensure that a wrong committed must be
remedied. Justice would not prevail if the Court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims who
have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been
employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law. The Constitution postulates the equality of
all faiths. Tolerance and mutual co-existence nourish the secular commitment of our nation and its
people.

The area of the composite site admeasures about 1500 square yards.

While determining the area of land to be allotted, it is necessary to provide restitution to the Muslim
community for the unlawful destruction of their place of worship. Having weighed the nature of the
relief which should be granted to the Muslims, we direct that land admeasuring 5 acres be

3
allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the Central Government out of the
acquired land or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya.

This exercise, and the consequent handing over of the land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board, shall
be conducted simultaneously with the handing over of the disputed site comprising of the inner and
outer courtyards as a consequence of the decree in Suit 5. Suit 4 shall stand decreed in the above
terms.

Section 6 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993 empowers the Central Government
to direct that the right, title and interest in relation to the area or any part thereof, instead of
continuing to vest in the Central Government shall vest in the authority or body or trustees of
any trust which is willing to comply with the terms and conditions as government may
impose.407 Section 7(1) provides that the property vested in the Central Government under Section
3, shall be maintained by the government or by any person or trustees of any trust, authorities in this
behalf.

We are of the view that it would be necessary to direct the Central Government to frame a scheme in
exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Sections 6 and 7 to set up a trust or any other
appropriate mechanism to whom the land would be handed over in terms of the decree in Suit 5.
The scheme shall incorporate all provisions necessary to vest power and authority in relation to the
management of the trust or the body chosen for the vesting of the land.

Reliefs and directions

We accordingly order and direct as follows:

1. (i) Suit 3 instituted by Nirmohi Akhara is held to be barred by limitation and shall
accordingly stand dismissed;

(ii) Suit 4 instituted by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and other plaintiffs is held to be within
limitation. The judgment of the High Court holding Suit 4 to be barred by limitation is reversed; and'

(iii) Suit 5 is held to be within limitation.

2. Suit 5 is held to be maintainable at the behest of the first plaintiff who is represented by the third
plaintiff. There shall be a decree in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B) of the suit, subject to the
following directions:

4
(i) 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. The scheme shall envisage the setting up of a trust with a Board
of Trustees or any other appropriate body under Section 6. The scheme to be framed by the Central
Government shall make necessary provisions in regard to the functioning of the trust or body
including on matters relating to the management of the trust, the powers of the trustees including the
construction of a temple and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters;

(ii) Possession of the inner and outer courtyards shall be handed over to the Board of Trustees of
the Trust or to the body so constituted. The Central Government will be at liberty to make suitable
provisions in respect of the rest of the acquired land by handing it over to the Trust or body for
management and development in terms of the scheme framed in accordance with the above
directions; and

(iii) Possession of the disputed property shall continue to vest in the statutory receiver under the
Central Government, untill in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Ayodhya Act of 1993,
a notification is issued vesting the property in the trust or other body.

3 (i) Simultaneously, with the handing over of the disputed property to the Trust or body under
clause 2 above, a suitable plot of land admeasuring 5 acres shall be handed over to the Sunni
Central Waqf Board, the plaintiff in Suit

4.
(ii) 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 Central Government and the State Government shall act in consultation with each other to
effectuate the above allotment in the period stipulated.

(iii) 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;

5
(iv) Suit 4 shall stand decreed to this extent in terms of the above directions; and
(v) The directions for the allotment of land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board in Suit 4 are issued in
pursuance of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.

4 In exercise of the powers vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we direct that in
the scheme to be framed by the Central Government, appropriate representation may be given in
the Trust or body, to the Nirmohi Akhara in such manner as the Central Government deems fit.

5 The right of the plaintiff in Suit 1 to worship at the disputed property is affirmed subject to any
restrictions imposed by the relevant authorities with respect to the maintenance of peace and order
and the performance of orderly worship.

All the appeals shall stand disposed of in the above terms. Parties are left to bear their own costs.