 |
| ram mandir news |
The Supreme Court on Saturday ruled to build the Ram temple on the disputed land in Ayodhya. The Constitution Bench of 5 judges unanimously gave its verdict at 10:30 am. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that the disputed 2.77 acres of land should be given to Ramlala Virajaman, a trust should be formed in 3 months for the construction of the temple and its plan should be prepared. The Chief Justice ruled that the Muslim side should be given 5 acres of alternative land to build the mosque, which is almost double the disputed land. The Chief Justice said that the demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama and this belief of Hindus is unquestioned.
Ram mandir case
The 1045-page decision read by the constitution bench for 45 minutes put an end to the most important and more than a century-old controversy in the country's history. A bench of Chief Justice Gogoi, Justice SA Bobode, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S Abdul Nazir made it clear that the mosque should be built at a prominent place. The disputed land given to Ramlala Virajaman will be owned by the receiver of the central government. On the decision, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said - the decision should not be seen as a defeat or victory of anyone.
Highlights of Supreme Court's ram mandir decision
The Chief Justice said - We are giving unanimous verdict. This court should accept the faith of religion and devotees. The court must maintain a balance.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said - Mir Baki built Babri Masjid. It would not be appropriate for the court to enter theology.
The disputed land was marked as government land in the revenue records.
Ram Janmabhoomi is not a judicial person, whereas Lord Rama can be a judicial person.
The disputed structure was not a structure of Islamic origin. The Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land. The structure below the mosque was not an Islamic structure.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has confirmed the fact that there was a temple under the demolished structure. Describing archaeological evidence as merely an opinion would be an insult to ASI. However, the ASI did not establish the fact that the temple was demolished and built a mosque.
Hindus consider this place to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, even Muslims say the same about the disputed place. Books and ancient texts written by ancient travelers indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama. Historical examples also indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama in the faith of Hindus.
The demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama, this belief of Hindus is unquestioned. However, ownership cannot be established on the basis of religion, faith. These can be signs of deciding a dispute.
It has been found that Hindus used to worship at Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoo even before the British era. Evidence recorded in the record suggests that the exterior of the disputed land was under the control of the Hindus.
The Supreme Court rejected the Shia Waqf Board's special permission petition challenging the 1946 Faizabad court order. The Shia Waqf Board's claim was over the disputed structure. This has been rejected.
The Supreme Court rejected the Nirmohi Akhara claim. The Nirmohi Akhara sought the right to manage the birthplace.
Allahabad High Court had asked to divide the disputed land into 3 parts.
In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had said that the 2.77-acre area of Ayodhya should be divided equally into three parts. One part will be given to the Sunni Waqf Board, the other to the Nirmohi Arena and the third to Ramlala Virajaman. 14 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said - Mir Baki built Babri Masjid. It would not be appropriate for the court to enter theology.
The disputed land was marked as government land in the revenue records.
Ram Janmabhoomi is not a judicial person, whereas Lord Rama can be a judicial person.
The disputed structure was not a structure of Islamic origin. The Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land. The structure below the mosque was not an Islamic structure.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) has confirmed the fact that there was a temple under the demolished structure. Describing archaeological evidence as merely an opinion would be an insult to ASI. However, the ASI did not establish the fact that the temple was demolished and built a mosque.
Hindus consider this place to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, even Muslims say the same about the disputed place. Books and ancient texts written by ancient travelers indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama. Historical examples also indicate that Ayodhya has been the birthplace of Lord Rama in the faith of Hindus.
The demolished structure is the birthplace of Lord Rama, this belief of Hindus is unquestioned. However, ownership cannot be established on the basis of religion, faith. These can be signs of deciding a dispute.
It has been found that Hindus used to worship at Ram Chabutara and Sita Rasoo even before the British era. Evidence recorded in the record suggests that the exterior of the disputed land was under the control of the Hindus.
The Supreme Court rejected the Shia Waqf Board's special permission petition challenging the 1946 Faizabad court order. The Shia Waqf Board's claim was over the disputed structure. This has been rejected.
The Supreme Court rejected the Nirmohi Akhara claim. The Nirmohi Akhara sought the right to manage the birthplace.
Allahabad High Court had asked to divide the disputed land into 3 parts.
In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had said that the 2.77-acre area of Ayodhya should be divided equally into three parts. One part will be given to the Sunni Waqf Board, the other to the Nirmohi Arena and the third to Ramlala Virajaman. 14 petitions were filed in the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision.
Ayodhya dispute: from 1526 till now / Ram mandir
1526: According to historians, Babur came to India in 1526 to fight Ibrahim Lodi. Babur's Subedar Mirbaki built a mosque in 1528 in Ayodhya. It was named Babri Masjid in honor of Babur.
1853: Communal violence erupted in Ayodhya for the first time during the Nawab of Awadh, Wajid Ali Shah. The Hindu community said that the mosque was built by breaking the temple.
1949: A statue of Ramlala is installed under the Central Dome at the disputed site.
1950: Hindu Mahasabha lawyer Gopal Visharad filed an application in Faizabad district court seeking the right to worship the idol of Ramlala.
1959: Nirmohi Akhara asserts ownership over the disputed site.
1961: The Sunni Waqf Board (Central) petitioned the court against the installation of the idol and asserted its right to the mosque and the surrounding land.
1981: Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board sues for land ownership.
1885: The district court of Faizabad rejected the application of Mahant Raghubir Das to put an umbrella on the Ram platform.
1989: Allahabad High Court asked to maintain status quo at disputed site.
1992: Disputed structure demolished in Ayodhya.
2002: Allahabad High Court begins hearing on petitions filed for the ownership of disputed structure land.
2010: The Allahabad High Court ruled 2: 1 and divided the disputed site equally between the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ramlala in three parts.
2011: The Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court verdict.
2016: Subramanian Swamy filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking permission to build the Ram temple at the disputed site.
2018: Supreme Court begins hearing on various petitions filed regarding Ayodhya dispute.
August 6, 2019: The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court complies with the decision of the Allahabad High Court.
Post a Comment