Ayodhya Verdict: Doors of courtroom 1 opens, Pronouncement of judgment commences

November 9: It’s now 10.30 AM. The doors of courtroom 1 opens. A massive crowd has gathered outside Court Room 1 of the Supreme Court where the 5-judge Constitutional bench will deliver the judgment in the Ayodhya case. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi along with Justice SA Bobde, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Abdul Nazeer enters the courtroom and occupy their seats. A crowd of lawyers and journalists have rushed inside the courtroom.

A host of media persons have gathered outside the Supreme Court. A massive crowd gathered outside Court Room 1 of the Supreme Court. Pronouncement of judgment commences. ​CJI Ranjan Gogoi, “We would request silence.” The bench stated that the pronouncement of judgment will last for half an hour and Ayodhya judgment will be an unanimous judgment.

VERDICT: Centre will hand over the disputed site to the Board of trustees and a suitable alternative plot of land measuring five acres at Ayodhya will be given to Sunni Waqf Board. In the scheme by Board of trustees, appropriate representation be given to Nirmohi Akhara.

There is adequate material in ASI report to conclude the following: Babri Masjid not constructed on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure. “The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure,” holds the Supreme Court.

The 5-judge bench held that Title to the land should be decided based on settled  legal principles. The judges further said that ASI refrained from recording a finding on whether mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple.

As per ASI the underlying structure was dated 12th Century. But the ASI report hasn’t said the underlying structure was a specific temple. The ASI report that a temple inside is supported by evidence. However, ASI did not say whether a temple was demolished to build another structure.

Hindus consider Ayodhya as birthplace of Lord Ram. Faith of Hindus is undisputed that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya. The apex Court said, “Both Hindu and Muslim witnesses indicate that Hindus and Muslims were offering prayers at the disputed site. Whether a belief is justified is beyond judicial inquiry. Once faith is established, courts should defer to it.”

“Once the court has the material that the faith is genuine, the court must not interfere and acknowledge it,” Supreme Court held.

The five-judge bench said that the cross exam of witness did not lead to any conclusion. “Whether belief is justified is beyond judicial inquiry. Travelogues also evidenced age old belief that Lord Ram was born there. Gazetteer can also provide corroborative materials. Courts must be circumspect from drawing negative inference. Titles can’t be established only on the basis of faith and belief.”

From documentary evidence it emerges that prior to 1857, there was no exclusion of Hindus from worshipping at the site: Supreme Court.

Suit 3 by Nirmohi Akhara dismissed as barred by limitation. Suit 4 and suit 5 within limitation. Title should be decided based on evidence in a court of law. Title cannot be established based on faith and belief, said the Supreme Court. Suit 4 and suit 5 within limitation.

Possession of inner and outer courtyards to be handed over to the Trust. Central Govt should within 3 months formulate a scheme envisaging setting up of Trust. Management of construction of the temple to be monitored by the trust. Land to remain vested in statutory receiver till trust is formed.

A suitable plot of land measuring 5 acres to be handed over to Sunni Waqf Board either by Central government or state government. Sunni Wakf Board at liberty to construct a mosque at the allotted land.

SC appreciates role of mediators Justice Kalifulla, ace mediator Sriram Panchu and Sri Ravishankar who came very close to settlement.

Stay tuned with way2barak for live updates of Ayodhya verdict… Refresh your page every moment for updates…