COMMUNICATION SKILLS

Report Writing Assignment

By:S073-S084
JOURNEY
TO
RAM MANDIR

Art Courtesy: S079(Rohitha Somuri)

 INTRODUCTION

रामो विग्रहवान् धर्मः साधु ः सत्यपराक् रमः।

राजा सर्वस्य लोकस्य दे वानाम् इव वासवः॥
"Shri Ram is the embodiment of righteousness, he is sadhu (noble
person) with truthfulness as his valour and as Indra to all gods, he
(Lord Ram) is the king of the entire world. "
~Valmiki
Ramayana

The whole world knows about Lord Ram, the prince of Ayodhya
and his saga 'Ramayana'. Shri Ram is on the lips of every man,
woman, child in the sacred land of Bharatvarsha (India), not only
because he is god himself but most prominently as an ideal hero,
the role model for everyone in true sense and hence he is
popularly known as Maryada Purshottam (the best among men).
Ram Janmbhoomi (literally, "Ram's birthplace") is the name
given to the site that is believed to be the birthplace of Ram. The
Ramayana states that the location of Ram's birthplace is on the
banks of Sarayu river in a city called " Ayodhya". With people
claiming that exact site of Ram's birthplace is where the Babri
Masjid once stood in the present-day Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, the
demands to construct Ram Mandir at the same place grew
stronger.
The Journey to Ram Mandir has never been a brawl between two
religions. There are several Muslims who have fought in favour of
Ram Temple. It is rather a story of devotion, faith and above all,
unity in the country. Ram Rajya is beyond religion.
Our honourable Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while
addressing the countrymen, said, "The temple should be
constructed on the foundation of mutual love and brotherhood".
t is now the time to look back at this long journey that ultimately
led to laying of foundation stone for construction of Ram Mandir
on August 5, 2020.

DISPUTE DURING BRITISH INDIA

After construction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya by Mughal
emperor Babur's Commander Mir Baqi, the first recorded
incident of religious violence over the site took place in 1853.
During the reign of Nawab Wajid Shah of Awadh, Nirmohis, a
Hindu sect, claimed that a Hindu temple had been destroyed
during Babur's times to build a Mosque.
Six years later, the British administration erected a fence to
divide the site into two parts-while the Muslims were allowed to
pray inside the Mosque, the outer court was reserved for the
Hindus.
Then in January 1885, Mahant Raghubir Das filed a plea in
Faizabad District court, seeking permission to build a canopy on
the Ramchabutra (a raised platform) outside the mosque. The
plea was dismissed.

RAM LALLA IDOLS INSIDE BABRI MOSQUE - 1949

A midnight raid by Abhiram Das and his fellows into Babri
Masjid changed the course of history when suddenly idols of Ram
Lalla popped up after which Abhiram Das began to be known as
'Ranjanmbhoomi Uddharak' or Simply as Uddharak Baba.
One year later, Gopal Singh Varshad filed a petition before
Faizabad court to worship the deity of Ram Janmabhoomi.
Hashim Ansari, a resident of Ayodhya, approached the court
saying that the idols should be removed and it be allowed to
remain a masjid.
The government locked the place but priests were allowed to
perform daily puja.

Images:

1.Ram Lalla idol at Ram Janmbhoomi Site in Ayodhya, Ahead of Ram Mandir Bhumi Poojan.

2.Ram Lalla Idol shifted to temporary structure to allow temple construction

PLEA SEEKS RESTORATIONS OF PROPERTY TO

MUSLIMS - 1961
Hindu parties vehemently sought from the Supreme Court on
Wednesday the dismissal of the 1961 lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf
Board and other Muslim litigants, saying they could not prove that
Mughal emperor Babur created a valid 'wakf' and constructed a
temple on vacant land at the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri
Masjid site in Ayodhya.
A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan
Gogoi, was told by senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for
the Hindu party, that it was the case of the Muslim side that the
mosque in question was built by the state (Babur) on the land
belonging to it, which has not been proved by them.
Besides Vaidyanathan, senior lawyers Ranjit Kumar, Sushil Jain,
Jaideep Gupta, Vikas Singh, P N Mishra, all appearing for various
Hindu parties, responded to the 1961 lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf
board and other Muslim individuals and said that the case, seeking
title claim over the entire 2.77 acre disputed land at Ayodhya, be
dismissed as being devoid of any merits.
Vaidyanathan further said that if the Muslim side claimed title over
the disputed land under the doctrine of adverse possession then
they will have to accept that the deity or the temple was the
previous real owner.
"They cannot claim benefit of adverse possession. If they claim so
then they will have to show the ouster of the prior owner that is
temple or the deity in this case," he told the bench, also comprising
justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A
Nazeer.
The Muslims may have several places for offering 'namaz' in
Ayodhya but for Hindus the place of birth of Lord Ram remains the
same which cannot be changed, he argued, adding that taking into
the account of unshakeable faith and belief of Hindus, the title of
the properties be given to the Hindus.
He further said the arguments of Muslim side that the land was
dedicated as a 'waqf' on the ground of being long user is not
sustainable because they did not have the exclusive possession
over the property as Hindus and Muslims both were sitting there.
Vaidyanthan said the plea of Muslim parties that Mughals, Nababs
of Awadh and Britishers gave the grants for upkeep of the masjid
did not help their case as it did not prove their title.
Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Hind devotee Gopal Singh Visharad,
said that Muslims have failed to prove their case and the lawsuit
filed by the Sunni Waqf board and others ought to be dismissed as
Visharad and other Hindu devotee have "pre-existing rights to
worship" at the site.
The character of the disputed site cannot be decided on the basis
of the faith of the Muslims, he said while concluding his
submissions.
He gave the illustration of Kailash Mansarovar and said that deity
or idol was necessary for considering a place to be religious as
Hindus worship the entire mountan as abode of Lord Shiva.
Vikas Singh, representing the All India Hindu Mahasabha, referred
to various aspects of the Allahabad High Court judgement and said
there has been faith and belief for long on the part of Hindus with
regard to the scared nature of the birthplace of Lord Ram.
He said the plea of Muslim parties that grants were given by a
Board in 1860 during British regime to Babri mosque for its upkeep
was untenable as the Board was dissolved by the Government of
India Act two years before in 1858.
He said Hindus kept worshipping at the Central dome believing it
to be the birth place of Lord Ram and justified the prayers by
Hindus at the iron railings at the site, submitting that even at
Tirupati, devotees are not allowed to enter into the temple beyond
a point.
 The counsel for Nirmohi and Nirvani Akhara also advanced
arguments in the case to claim management and "shebaithi right"
(devotee right) over the disputed land in Ayodhya and said that
they have been in possession of the property since 1885 and this
has been fairly admitted by the Muslim side also.
P N Mishra, also appearing for a Hindu party, said that in
Mohammedan law, holy Quran is the primary source of Islamic law
and Muslims have no evidence of use of land before 1856.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Muslim parties,
advanced rejoinder arguments and said they were entitled to
"restoration of the mosque as it was existing on December 5, 1992,
a day before the demolition.
"The destroyed building belonged to Muslims and the right to
reconstruct also belonged to us," he said, adding that their case
was that the Muslims perfected their title on account of long and
uninterrupted possession over the land in question.
He said building or no building, the place remains a mosque after it
was dedicated to the almighty as wakf.
He objected to the submission of the Hindu parties that the Babur
was a foreigner and his act amounted to historical wrong needing
reparation, and said even Aryans were foreigners and one should
not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim foreigner.
"Hindus had no title but only had prescriptive right to pray," he
said, adding that even the Hindus were conquerors and there were
thousands of conquests in history.
He concluded the hearing by reciting couplets of famous poet Iqbal
and said that these are the testing times for the country and the
citizens.
 The 5-judge Constitution bench

CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED TO BUILD RAM TEMPLE - 1980s

Ram Janmabhoomi (literally, "Rama's birthplace") is the name
given to the site that is believed to be the birthplace of Rama, the
seventh avatar of the Hindu deity Vishnu. The Ramayana states
that the location of Rama's birthplace is on the banks of the
Sarayu river in a city called "Ayodhya".
Some Hindus claim that the exact site of Rama's birthplace is
where the Babri Masjid once stood in the present-day Ayodhya,
Uttar Pradesh. According to this theory, the Mughals demolished
a Hindu shrine that marked the spot, and constructed a mosque
in its place. People opposed to this theory state that such claims
arose only in the 18th century, and that there is no evidence for
the spot being the birthplace of Rama.
The political, historical and socio-religious debate over the history
and location of the Babri Mosque, and whether a previous temple
was demolished or modified to create it, is known as the Ayodhya
dispute. In 1992, the demolition of the Babri Masjid by Hindu
nationalists triggered widespread Hindu-Muslim violence. Several
other sites, including places in other parts of India, Afghanistan,
and Nepal, have been proposed as birthplaces of Rama.
The five judges Supreme Court bench heard the title dispute
cases from August to October 2019. On 9 November 2019, the
Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to
build the Hindu temple. It also ordered to the government to give
alternate 5 acre land to Sunni Waqf Board to build the mosque.
On 5 February 2020, the trust known as Shri Ram Janmabhoomi
Teerth Kshetra was created by the Government of India. The
trust will oversee the construction of the Ram Mandir. The
foundation stone for construction of the temple was laid on 5
August 2020 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

AYODHYA COURT ORDERS MOSQUE TO BE

OPENED FOR HINDUS TO OFFER PRAYERS - 1986
Several years from independence mosques were built in the
Faizabad district, in which the pilgrim city of Ayodhya falls.
Ayodhya itself has a small Muslim population, though there are
substantial numbers of Muslims 7 km away at District
Headquarters – Faizabad. Since 1949, by Indian Government
order, Muslims were not permitted to be closer than 200 yards
away to the site; the main gate remained locked, though Hindu
pilgrims were allowed to enter through a side door. The 1986
Allahabad High Court ordered the opening of the main gate and
restored the site in full to the Hindus. Hindu groups later
requested modifications to the Babri Mosque, and drew up plans
for a new grand Temple with Government permissions
Ayodhya district judge ordered that the gates of the disputed
mosque to be opened to allow Hindus to worship there, on a plea
by Hari Shankar Dubey. Muslims set up the Babri Mosque Action
Committee in protest.’
The Supreme Court in October 24, 1994 said that the mosque was
not integral to Islam in the historic Ismail Faruqui case.
Following the court’s order, the Rajiv Gandhi government
ordered the locks on the Babri Masjid gates to be removed.
In April,2002 the High Court commenced with the hearings in
order to determine who has the ownership of the disputed site.
And finally on March 13, 2003 Supreme Court mentioned that no
religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired.
Before the court’s order, only a Hindu priest could perform an
annual puja. After the ruling, all Hindus were given access to the
site, and the mosque gained some function as a Hindu temple.

VHP LAYS THE FOUNDATION OF RAM TEMPLE - 1989

In 1984 Hindu groups formed a committee to spearhead the
construction of the Ram temple at the Janmabhoomi site.
Bhartiya Janata Party leader L K Advani took over the
leadership of The Temple movement which gathered momentum
with time.
Lucknow, Aug 4 (UNI) Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) President
Alok Kumar has claimed that the foundation stone for the
construction of a grand Ram Temple at the birth place of Lord
Shree Ram was laid way back in 1989 and on August 5 the
construction work will start. The construction of the Temple was
embroiled in the hurdles created by various governments, the
manipulations by political forces and the long delays in the courts.
‘Nirmohis’, a Hindu sect, claimed that a Hindu temple had been
destroyed during Babur's times to build the mosque. However, on
9th November 1989, Kameshwar Chaupal with a group of VHP
leaders and Sadhus laid the foundation stone by digging a 200-
litre (7-cubic-foot) pit adjacent to the disputed land.
But since then, 64-year-old Kameshwar Chaupal, a Dalit, is
anxiously waiting for the construction of the temple to begin.
Kameshwar Chaupal earned the title ‘First Kar Sewak’ after
laying the Shila (foundation stone).

THE RATHYATRA - 1990

As a part of support for the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation, the
Bharatiya Janata Party organised a Rath Yatra (chariot journey)
from different parts of the country to Ayodhya in 1990.This Ram
Rath Yatra lasted from 25 september,1990 to 30 october,1990 and
it was led by Sri L.K.Advani, the then president of the BJP.
The yatra was supposed to be 10,000km long and it began at the
Hindu holy city of Somnath and was planned to go through the
states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, AP, MP and Bihar before
reaching the city of Ayodhya in UP.
This yatra was highly supported by volunteers of Bajrang Bal and
the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The yatra caused more attention
from people than expected and also caused huge chaos which
forced the then government to take action against it. Government
officials arrested the people who violated the law. Advani paused
the rally in Delhi for several days daring the central government
to arrest him but it did not happen. But afterwards ,on 23
october,1990,the then Prime Minister Sri V.P Singh authorised
Sri Lalu Prasad Yadav ,the then Chief Minister of Bihar to arrest
Advani. Despite Advanis arrest the kar-sevaks (activists)
continued the rally successfully. Although many of them were
jailed, the remaining ones reached Ayodhya and placed a saffron
flag on top of the Babri Masjid and started destroying it with axes
and hammers. Then the security personnel took action and the
kar-sevaks were sent out from Masjid, in this battle 20 volunteers
of VHP were dead.
The Rath Yatra was mostly successful although it caused many
riots between two different religious communities all over India
causing the death of many individuals across the country. This
yatra further helped the BJP to win the parliamentary elections
which followed.

THE MOSQUE IS DEMOLISHED - 1992

The demolition of the Babri Masjid was illegally carried out on 6
December 1992 by a large group of activists of the Vishva Hindu
Parishad and allied organisations. The 16th-century Babri
Mosque in the city of Ayodhya, in Uttar Pradesh, had been the
subject of a lengthy socio-political dispute, and was targeted after
a political rally organised by Hindu nationalist organisations
turned violent. At least 2,000 people died in the violence.
In Hindu tradition, the city of Ayodhya is the birthplace of Rama.
In the 16th century a Mughal general, Mir Baqi, had built a
mosque, known as the Babri Masjid at a site identified by some
Hindus as Ram Janmabhoomi, or the birthplace of Rama.
The Archaeological Survey of India states that the mosque was
built on land where a non-Islamic structure had previously
existed. In the 1980s, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) began a
campaign for the construction of a temple dedicated to Rama at
the site, with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as its political
voice. Several rallies and marches were held as a part of this
movement, including the Ram Rath Yatra led by L. K. Advani.
On 6 December 1992 the VHP and the BJP organised a rally at
the site involving 150,000 volunteers, known as kar sevaks. The
rally turned violent, and the crowd overwhelmed security forces
and tore down the mosque. A subsequent inquiry into the incident
found 68 people responsible, including several leaders of the BJP
and the VHP. The demolition resulted in several months
of intercommunal rioting between
India's Hindu and Muslim communities, causing the death of at
least 2,000 people. Retaliatory violence against Hindus also
occurred in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

ASI CONDUCTS SURVEY - 2003

The archaeological survey of India (ASI) report of August 2003 is
the fifth survey in Ayodhya. The survey was to the Buddhist sites
and establish antecedents of Ayodhya, The present - day Ayodhya
is Ayodhya of ramayan years. Though no conclusive shreds of
evidence were found in the surveys that could claim that the
mosque was build after demolishing temple, the politics regarding
the disputed site reached new heights.
A survey conducted in 1975 by ASI on 14 different sites in
Ayodhya includingth Babri mosque claimed to have found the
pillar bases of " what may have been a temple at the site which
may have belonged to a larger building than the Babri
mosque.survey suggest that statue of Vishnu indicated that the
inner Boundary of disputed structure rest rest on an earlier
existing structure,which may belonged to the temple.
The same year Babri mosque was demolished by karsevaiks
which led to protest in several parts of country The survey in
2003 according to the report which was submitted In the court
,stated amoung the structures losted in the report are several
brick walls in East West and north south Orientation decorated
coloured floor bases and 1.64 meter high decoreted black stone
piller with figures and incriptions of Sanskrit .However the
Muslim parties are alleging that survey was conducted under
political influence . After 70 years of long battle in different
courts the hearings inthe matter untill recently 16 October justice
was passed.

ALLAHBAD HC DIVIDES THE DISPUTED SITE IN

THREE PARTS - 2010
Sixty years after the matter first went into litigation, a Special
Full Bench of the High Court of Allahabad has ruled that the
disputed land in Ayodhya where the Babri Masjid stood for 500
years until it was demolished in 1992 shall be divided into three
parts. A two-thirds portion is to be shared by two Hindu plaintiffs
and one-third will be given to the Sunni Muslim Waqf Board.
By a 2-1 majority verdict, plaintiffs representing Lord Ram, the
Nirmohi Akhara and the the Waqf Board were declared joint title
holders of the property. The bench asserted that the portion
under the central dome of the demolished three-dome structure
where the idol of Ram Lalla had been kept in a makeshift temple
was the birthplace of Lord Rama “as per faith and belief of
Hindus”.
The Bench of Justice S.U. Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and
Justice D.V. Sharma dismissed the suit filed by the Sunni Waqf
Board for the possession of the Babri Masjid because it was time-
barred. It cited faith as the basis to declare the site the
janmasthan of Lord Ram, but ordered a three-way partition on
the basis of historical use of the site by Muslims and Hindus.
The Waqf Board said it would file an appeal in the SC against the
judgement. Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani told a media
conference here that the All India Muslim Personal Law Board
would decide to file it.
The Bench clarified that even though all three parties are
declared to have one-third share in each in the property, minor
adjustments could be made-for which the adversely affected party
would be compensated from the adjoining land acquired by the
Central Government.

ALL THREE SIDES APPROACH SUPREME COURT - 2011

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday ruled by a majority

verdict that the disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally into
three parts among Hindus and Muslims and that the place where
the makeshift temple of Lord Ram exists belongs to Hindus.
In their separate judgements on the sensitive 60-year old title
dispute on Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure, Justices S
U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal said that the area under the central
dome of the three-domed structure where Lord Ram's idol exists
belongs to Hindus.
The majority in the three-judge Lucknow bench also ruled that
status quo should be maintained at the disputed place for three
months.  ..

However, the third judge Justice D V Sharma ruled that that the
disputed site is the birth place of Lord Ram and that the disputed
building constructed by Mughal emperor Babur was built against
the tenets of Islam and did not have the character of the mosque.
Justice Khan said "all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims,
Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the
property/premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F
in the map Plan-I prepared by Shri Shiv Shankar Lal,
Pleader/Commissioner appointed by court in Suit No. 1 to the
extent of 1/3rd share each for using and managing the same for
worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed."

However, the judge observed that it is further declared that the

portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept
in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

He also said that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including

that part which is shown by the words 'Ram Chabutra' and 'Sita
Rasoi' in the said map.

Sunni Wakf Board said it will move the Supreme Court against
the Allahabad High Court order dividing the disputed land in
Ayodhya among three parties and said they were not going to
surrender it

We will appeal against the division of disputed land among three

parties," Board lawyer Zafaryab Jilani told reporters here.

"HC's formula of one-third land is not acceptable to the Waqf

Board and it will appeal against it in the apex court," he said.
He said they were not going to surrender the land. However, he
said, the Sunni Board is open to any negotiated settlement on the
issue if such a proposal for negotiations for a settlement came to
it.

Congress welcomed the Ayodhya judgement saying everyone

should accept it and no one should treat it as a victory or defeat.
"Congress has held that the controversy should either be solved
through talks or the verdict of the court should be accepted. The
court has given the verdict. We should all welcome the
judgement," party general secretary Janardhan Dwivedi told
reporters.

The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) said the judicial ruling

was a green signal to build a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya and
asked all Indians to forget the past bitterness.

RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat told reporters here that judgment of

the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court "clears the way
for a Ram temple" in Ayodhya.

He also appealed for peace in the country and urged people not to
celebrate the verdict in a manner that could hurt the sentiments
of any community.
VHP welcomed the Allahabad High Court verdict on the
Ayodhya title issue saying the faith of Hindus has been endorsed
by the judiciary.

SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY FILES A PLEA IN SC SEEKING

CONSTRUCTION OF RAM TEMPLE - 2016

BJP leader and Rajya Sabha MP Subramanian Swamy on

Monday mentioned before Supreme Court his plea that he has a
fundamental right to offer prayer at the site of Ram Mandir-
Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice
Sanjiv Khanna asked Swamy to remain present in the court on
Tuesday when the five-judge bench constituted to hear the
Ayodhya case will take up the matter.
Swamy, however, mentioned the matter for urgent listing and
requested the bench that his plea should be heard separately. But
the CJI, who is heading the five-judge bench constituted to hear
the Ayodha case, rejected his request and asked him to appear
before the SC on Tuesday during the hearing of the contentious
land dispute case.
It may be recalled that Swamy had moved the SC last year over
his plea seeking enforcement of the right to pray at the
controversial site.
Earlier on July 3, 2018, Swamy's plea over the fundamental right
to worship at Ayodhya site was rejected by the apex court. At that
time, the top court had asked him to mention it 'later on'. "You
mention it later on," the bench had said.On February 20, the SC
had said that it will hear Ayodhya's Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri
Masjid land dispute matter on February 26.
On January 27, the scheduled hearing for January 29 was
cancelled by the top court as one of the five judges of the
Constitution Bench, Justice S A Bobde, was not available on that
day.
Besides CJI and Justice Bobde, the other members of the bench
are Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
It is expected that on Tuesday, the SC bench will hear the appeals
against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment in which the
2.77-acre land in Ayodhya was divided equally among three
parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram
Lalla by the court. The verdict was delivered by Allahabad HC
after hearing four civil suits.
It is interesting to note that few weeks ago a plea was filed by the
Central government in the SC seeking permission for the release
of 67 acres of excess vacant land acquired around the disputed
Ayodhya site.
SUPREME COURT ASKS GOVT. TO HANDOVER LAND
FOR RAM TEMPLE CONSTRUCTION - 2019
The final judgement in the Ayodhya dispute was declared by the
Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019. The Supreme
Court of India ordered the disputed land (2.77 acres) to be
handed over to a trust (to be created by Government of India) to
build the Ram Janmabhoomi (revered as the birthplace of Hindu
deity, Ram)temple. The court also ordered the government to give
an alternative 5 acres of land in another place to the Uttar
Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the purpose of building a
mosque as are placement for the demolished Babri Masjid. The
five-judge bench of the Supreme Court unanimously pronounced
its verdict on 9November 2019. The judgement can be
summarised as follows:
 The Court ordered the Government of India to create a trust
to build the Ram Mandir temple and form a Board of
Trustees within three months. The disputed land will be
owned by the Government of India and subsequently
transferred to the Trust after its formation.
 The Court ordered the entire disputed land of area of
2.77acres to be allocated for the construction of a temple
while an alternative piece of land of area of 5acres be
allocated to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board
 for the construction of a mosque at a suitable place within
Ayodhya.
 The Court ruled that the 2010 Allahabad High Court's
decision, division of the disputed land was incorrect.
 The Court ruled that the Demolition of the Babri Masjid
and the 1949 desecration of the Babri Masjid was inviolation
of law.
 The Court observed that archaeological evidence from the
Archaeological Survey of India shows that the Babri Masjid
was constructed on a"structure", whose architecture was
distinctly indigenous and non-Islamic.
 On objections raised with regards to ASIs various scientific
claims by the Muslim parties, the Supreme Court observed,
the contesting parties could have raised it before the
Allahabad High Court as there were legal remedies available
for the same. The apex court of India also commented that
the ASI report which was submitted on behalf of the
Allahabad High Court was not an "ordinary opinion". At
the same time, on The Historians report to the Nation
authored by Aligrah historians and presented as an
evidence, the court observed: "At the highest, this report
can be taken as an opinion."
 The ruins of an ancient religious structure under an existing
building do not always indicate that it was demolished by
unfriendly powers, the Supreme Court held in its1,045-page
judgment in the Ayodhya case.
 The court observed that all four of the Janam sakhis
(biographies of the first Sikh guru, Guru Nanak) state
unambiguously and in detail that Guru Nanak made
pilgrimage to Ayodhya and offered prayers in the Ram
temple in 1510–11AD.The court also mentioned that a group
of Nihang Sikhs performed puja in the "mosque" in1857.
 The Court said that Muslim parties, including the Uttar
Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board, failed to establish
 exclusive possession of disputed land. It said that the Hindu
parties furnished better evidence to prove that Hindus had
worshipped continuously inside the mosque, believing it to
be the birth place of the Hindu deity Rama. The Court cited
that iron railing setup in1856–57 separated the inner
courtyard of the mosque from the outer courtyard ,and that
Hindus were in exclusive possession of the outer courtyard.
It said that even before this, Hindus had access to the inner
courtyard of the mosque.
 The Court ruled that the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara could
not be up held and it had no she bait rights. However, the
court ruled that Nirmohi Akhara should be given
appropriate representation in the Board of Trustees.
 The Court rejected the claim made by Shia Waqf Board
against the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for the
ownership of the Babri Masjid. On 12 December 2019 the
Supreme Court dismissed all the 18 petitions seeking review
of the verdict.
 The Supreme Court of India in a judgement running 1,045
pages has ruled that the Central Government in three
months will setup a trust to build a temple on the disputed
site. The Masjid side will get an alternate patch of land.
Meanwhile, the situation at ground zero in Ayodhya,
remains poised as security has been beefed up, "victory
celebrations" and "mourning processions" have been
banned. Security heightened in Ayodhya ahead of the
verdict in Ayodhya land dispute case today; Section 144
(prohibit sassembly of more than 4 people in an area) has
been imposed in the state of Uttar Pradesh.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi Said- "I appeal to my
countrymen that it should be our priority to strengthen our
tradition of maintaining peace and harmony.In the run-upto
Ayodhya verdict, efforts have been made by various people and
organisations to maintain harmony. We have to maintain amity
even after the verdict".

FOUNDATION STONE LAYING CEREMONY – 2020

After all these years and countless debates and riots over the
controversial issue of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, we can say that
August 5,2020 marks as the end of the controversy.
The groundbreaking ceremony marked the formal launch of the
temple’s construction as promised by the ruling Bharatiya Janata
Party nearly three decades earlier
LK Advani, 92, and Murli Manohar Joshi, 86, the two BJP
leaders who had led the campaign to build the temple in its early
days, were said to had watched the live telecast of the event
because of the coronavirus pandemic.
“A grand temple will now be built for our Ram Lalla who had
been staying in a tent for decades. Today, Ram janmbhoomi
breaks free of the cycle of breaking and getting built again - that
had been going on for centuries,” PM Modi said at the event and
also expressed gratitude to all the people who had made huge
sacrifices for the temple moment.
“India is creating a golden chapter in Ayodhya. The wait of
centuries ends today,” PM Modi said in his televised address at
the event.
PM Modi used silver bricks during the rituals. But for the
foundation stone, bricks donated by devouts from across the
world in 1989 would be used. “There are 275,000 such bricks out
of which 100 bricks with ‘Jai Shri Ram’ engraving have been
taken,” the priest said as the vedic rituals, which have continued
for three days, were coming to an end.
Dressed in the traditional kurta and dhoti, PM Modi offered
prayers at the Hanuman Garhi temple soon after landing in the
riverside town of Ayodhya from Uttar Pradesh capital Lucknow.
Anil Mishra, member of Sri Ram Janmabhoomi Tirth Kshetra
Trust, said this puja was performed to “seek Lord Hanuman’s
permission to start construction work of Ram Mandir”.
PM Modi next headed straight to the temple for the ceremony.
Security had been tight for the event, particularly in light of the
coronavirus pandemic and the need to adhere to social distancing.
Only 175 guests had been invited.But the temple trust had
ordered
100,000
packets of
laddus for

distribution to people and dignitaries.

Hindus believe the Babri Masjid, was built over a temple
dedicated to Lord Ram, whose birthplace is also considered to be
at the site.This had led to a lot of outrage and riots among the two
religions which are Hinduism and Muslims.Both the parties had
indulged in both no-violent and violent mode of protest.Finally we
can see that the centuries long conflict has had come to an end
lawfully.Both the parties have had already to construction of Ram
Mandir at that place.

PM Narendra Modi during foundation stone laying ceremony:

PARTICIPANTS
ROLL NO. NAME SIGNATURE
73 Arvinda Swamy

74 Praveen Vemana

75 Aditya Jadhav

76 Dhanesh Choudhary
77 Prabhat Gupta

78 Ayush Dhulap

79 Rohitha Somuri

80 Swaroop Talakwar

81 Dhanjeet Singh

82 Netra Wasekar

83 Kaustubh

84 Sura Yashwanth

BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pm-narendra-
modi-lays-foundation-stone-for-ram-temple-a-timeline-of-
ayodhya-dispute/articleshow/77363538.cms
2. https://www.google.com/url?
sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://lordrama.co.in/about-
lord-
rama.html&ved=2ahUKEwjHxpOGt4PvAhUs63MBHeiOD
agQFjAVegQIDRAC&usg=AOvVaw2h6uOonxWBrFgCxT
9QUbGF
3. https://theprint.in/india/10-milestones-on-the-centuries-long-
road-to-the-ram-janmabhoomi-temple-in-ayodhya/474970/
4. http://www.businessworld.in/article/Journey-Of-Ram-
Mandir/06-08-2020-305673
5. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-the-
ayodhya-ram-temple-journey-from-november-9-1989-to-
august-5-2020-6539284/