The Supreme Court of India passed the much-awaited verdict on Babri Mosque on Saturday. According to the verdict, a temple named after the Hindu deity Ram will be built on the disputed 2.77 acre land in Ayodhya while another five acres of land will be provided to Muslims to construct a mosque.
A constitutional bench consisting of five justices headed by Indian Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi passed the verdict unanimously. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has in the meantime termed the verdict as a golden chapter in Indian history.
He has called upon everyone to honor the court's verdict and work for driving India forward irrespectively. Narendra Modi also urged all Indians to uphold the tradition of amity, unity and harmony.
On the other hand, Sunni Waqf Board's lawyer Zafaryab Jilani said on Saturday, "We respect the judgement of the Supreme Court though we are not fully satisfied." However, Sunni Waqf Board will not file any review petition over the verdict.
Barun Kumar Singh who advocated for Hindu Maha Sava, said, "It's a historic verdict. The Indian Supreme Court has conveyed the message of unity amid diversity through this judgment."
This verdict clears the way for Hindu devotees to build Ram Mandir on the disputed land. The Indian Supreme Court has ordered the central government to form a particular trust which will supervise the land and will work out plans for the construction of the temple. According to the Supreme Court's directives, the Indian government will also have to allocate five acres of land for the construction of a mosque.
Prominent voices in India including All India Muslim Personal Law Board have appealed to citizens to respect the judgment and to keep calm.
This judgment is based on law, not on faith. The judgment is culmination of a very long judicial process which began in 1950. The Supreme Court took into account the findings of Archeological Survey of India (ASI) and historic records.
This judgment will not lead to similar claims in other parts of the country and, will not, in any way infringe on the rights of minority citizens.
The Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991, passed by India's Parliament, prohibits any change in the religious and denominational character of a place of worship as it existed on 15 August 1947. The Act solely excludes the existing disputed property in Ayodhya because it was already sub judice at that time.
Hence, there is no possibility of this Supreme Court judgment relating to the land in Ayodhya becoming a legal precedent under the provisions of this Act. As such, the judgment cannot be used to seek or claim or reclaim other places of worship which may have been disputed.
Leave Your Comments