Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

More than a century-old religious dispute⁠— the first case was filed in 1885⁠— became a land title suit is awaiting the final word from India’s Supreme Court, which is expected to give its verdict in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid (mosque) dispute in <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> very soon. The Hindu sides contend there should be a temple for Lord Rama in the 2.7 acre land because one was destroyed for construction of the <keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> in the 16th century. The dispute continued escalating until December 6, 1992 when the mosque was demolished by those who wanted a temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. 
 <div type="Youtube" id="-tpuk6l1GVE" title="What is the Ayodhya Dispute?" thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-tpuk6l1GVE/mqdefault.jpg"></div>



 The Allahabad High Court divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary), and the Sunni Waqf Board. The appeals at the Supreme Court are against this verdict and the contentions of all 50 parties to the case can be subsumed in the claims of the three primary parties to the case who got parts of the land in the High Court case. Ram Lalla Virajman Interestingly, the reference to Ram Lalla Virajman is to the deity of Lord Rama, represented by a human, legally called ‘next friend’, Trilok Nath Pandey, a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Both in India and the UK courts, there are legal precedents that have accepted deities as juristic entities in the past. The primary claims of Ram Lalla are as follows: <ul><li>Decree of declaration stating that the entire site (building and adjacent area) belongs to the deity.</li><li>Perpetual injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from interfering in any manner in the construction of a new temple under the trusteeship of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.</li><li>The representative of Ram Lalla is opposed to the division of the land title as it holds that the deity is indivisible.</li></ul>Nirmohi Akhara The Nirmohi Akhara is a math (a monastery) for ascetic devotees of Lord Rama. The Akhara claims to be existence since at least 1400 AD, according to some accounts, and that it has been managing the temple much before the construction of the mosque. With the current appeal at the Supreme Court, the Akhara wants the management and control of the temple back in its hands. For that, the Court has to first agree that a temple can be built there. The Akhara only came into the national spotlight in 1959 when it moved the court against the transfer of control of the disputed site to the state government. That 1959 lawsuit was borne out of incident on December 22, 1949 when a set of Hindu idols were placed under the dome of the Babri Masjid. But the Akhara has claimed that those idols were always there. <ul><li>stay the operation of the High Court's judgment that granted the three-domed structure to the Sunni Waqf Board and Shri Ram Virajman</li><li>Allow pooja (worships and rituals) of Lord Rama at the site and bar anyone from removing the deities as directed by the Supreme Court in the 1993 judgement.</li></ul>Gopal Singh Visharad Gopal Singh Visharad is an individual who moved the Faizabad court in 1950 demanding his right to worship at the disputed site saying his ancestors had been doing so before the mosque was established. Later that year, another appellant, Paramhans Ram Chandra Das, filed a suit seeking permission for "worship and darshan without any check, obstruction or interference". The Faizabad civil judge consolidated the suits filed by Visharad and Das and in the final verdict handed the disputed site over to the state government, which is when the Nirmohi Akhara jumped into the court battle demanding rights over the land. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs A Waqf is a body recognized by Muslim Law, the Sharia, which owns and manages properties donated for a religious purpose. They are regulated earlier under the Waqf Act of 1954, and now under the Waqf Act of 1995, approved by the Indian Parliament. In the Ayodhya dispute, the Sunni Waqf Board has spearheaded the claims of the Muslim community from 1961, after the state government had seized control through the Faizabad court verdict. The Board wanted control over the mosque and the removal of the idols inside. The consolidation of the three cases⁠— Visharad, Das, and the Sunni Waqf Board⁠— became the main case in 1964. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid by kar sevaks, members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, in 1992, the Waqf Board sought to get the mosque restored. After 2010, the Board appealed at the Supreme Court against the division of the disputed site into three parts by the Allahabad High Court. Shia WAQF Board Interestingly, despite being a Muslim organisation, the Shia Waqf Board (representing a sect) has supported the cause for a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and sought that the Muslim parties should give up their claim. The Shia Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board. Babur, who is said to have built the mosque in the disputed site, was from the Shia sect among Muslims. The Shia Waqf Board has appealed that the Supreme Court must hand over the part of land that was given to the Sunni Waqf Board, by the Allahabad High Court verdict, to the Hindu parties. In return, the Shia Waqf Board has demanded that the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt in another site. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/a-curious-rift-emerges-in-sunni-waqf-board-a-party-to-ayodhya-case-ahead-of-a-verdict/articleshow/71681803.cms">A curious rift emerges in Sunni Waqf Board-a party to Ayodhya case-ahead of a verdict</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-issue-days-ahead-of-a-verdict-muslim-parties-refuse-mediation-and-settlement/articleshow/71646131.cms">Ayodhya issue: Days ahead of a verdict, Muslim parties refuse mediation and settlement</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/lawyer-tears-up-pictoral-map-as-courtroom-drama-peaks-on-the-last-day-of-ayodhya-arguments/articleshow/71613741.cms">Lawyer tears up pictoral map as courtroom drama peaks on the last day of Ayodhya arguments</a>

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

A Waqf is a body recognized by Muslim Law, the Sharia, which owns and manages properties donated for a religious purpose. They are regulated earlier under the Waqf Act of 1954, and now under the Waqf Act of 1995, approved by the Indian Parliament. <keyword id="1037861" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Waqf-Boards">Waqf Boards</keyword> have perpetual succession and they have power to acquire and hold property. In the <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> title dispute⁠— Ram temple versus Babri Masjid⁠— there are two Waqf Boards involved. One of them represents the Sunni sect and the other represents the Shia sect. The Sunni Waqf Board has spearheaded the claims of the Muslim community’s appeal from 1960s. In 1961, the state government had seized control of the disputed site through the Faizabad court verdict. The Sunni Waqf Board wanted control over the mosque and the removal of the idols inside, which were reportedly placed under the mosque’s dome in on December 22, 1949. The <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword> ordered in 2010 that the disputed land should be divided into three parts and one part should go to the Sunni Waqf Board⁠— the other two parts must go to the Hindu sides represented by Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman (the deity). But the Waqf Board wants the entire land and the mosque to be restored as it was before its demolition in 1992. Shia vs Sunni The Shia Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board. Babur, who is said to have built a mosque in the disputed site, was from the Shia sect among Muslims. However, the Shia WAQF Board has supported the construction of Ram temple at the site where the mosque (<keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword>) stood earlier. In return, the Shia Waqf Board has demanded that the government must give an alternative site for the mosque construction.

The Waqf Boards and their stance on the Ayodhya dispute awaiting Supreme Court verdict

<ul><li>India has seen numerous communal riots in its history with the Ayodhya dispute as the flashpointIndia has seen numerous communal riots in its history with the Ayodhya dispute as the flashpoint. </li><li>So ahead of the SC verdict, there were numerous appeals for calm no matter which side the verdict goes in favour of⁠— starting from the country’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi.</li></ul>It was announced on Friday that the Supreme Court verdict in the historic Ram Temple vs <keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> standoff at Ayodhya will be announced on Saturday, November 11. Efforts to calm any tension post the verdict had begun much before but they peaked on Friday night and Saturday morning. The dispute between Hindus and Muslims over a holy site in Ayodhya is over a century old and has proved to be an explosive issue. So while both sides⁠— one that wants a temple and the other that wants a mosque⁠— seem desperate for a closure and have their hopes pinned on the country’s Supreme Court, the anticipation has turned out to be a headache for both the local authorities, the state and central governments, as well as for people who couldn’t care less. 
	
	
	






 <div type="Slideshow" msid="71979316" hostid="261" title="See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case" firstImageMsid="71979317" slideCount="10"></div>

See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case

<ul><li>The Supreme Court pronounced the historic <keyword id="399476" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya-verdict">Ayodhya verdict</keyword> today. </li><li>The Hindus get to keep the land of dispute and build a temple, while the Muslims get a 5 acre land within <keyword id="6354931" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> to build a mosque. </li><li>The SC cited the findings of <keyword id="6355180" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="archaeological-survey-of-india">Archaeological Survey of India</keyword> in its verdict.</li></ul>The evidence from Archaeological Survey of India played a crucial part in the Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya dispute, where the judges allowed the construction of a temple for Lord Rama and ordered that the government must give the Muslims a separate 5-acre site for the construction of a mosque. While it cited ASI findings, the SC also said that the title for the disputed property cannot be based solely on the report. The archaeological findings in Ayodhya didn't prove the existence of Lord Rama, or even the existence of a Hindu temple beneath the Babri Masjid. They only exposed the holes in the arguments of the Muslim side, particularly, the Waqf Board. Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land According to the judgement the discovery of structures and articles showed evidence of continuous public use of the disputed land starting from the Gupta era to the early medieval Rajput era through the Delhi Sultanate era up until the construction of the mosque in the 16th century. This finding helped debunk the claim by Muslims, particularly the Sunni Waqf Board, that the Babri Masjid was built on a vacant piece of land. At that juncture, the counsel for the Muslim side went back on the earlier claim, and insisted that the underlying structure was an Idgah⁠— an open space used for Id prayers. The change in stance from the Waqf Board brought the argument to a point where the court had to decide whether the underlying structure was an Islamic or non-Islamic. The court eventually decided that it was non-Islamic, based on the ASI report. However, while the Supreme Court clearly dismissed the presence of an Islamic structure, it didn’t confirm a Hindu temple too. “The possible linkages of Buddhist or Jain traditions cannot be excluded. Indeed, in assessing archaeological or historical material one must eschew a unidimensional view. The excavation in the present case does in fact suggest a confluence of civilisations, cultures and traditions," said the order. Against the Allahabad HC verdict The Supreme Court’s order also quashed the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict by Justice SU Khan. Justice Khan had discarded the ASI findings to say that, <ul><li>firstly, there was evidence of continuity in structural phases from the tenth Century onward upto the construction of the disputed structure is directly in conflict with the pleadings, gazetteers and history books </li></ul><ul><li>secondly, that in the case a temple had been demolished for constructing a mosque, the super structure of the temple would not have gone inside the ground</li></ul>But the SC called the first argument ‘specious’ and the second one ‘pure conjecture’. Historians’ report debunked The Supreme Court also dismissed a report “Babri Mosque or Rama‘s Birth Place? Historians‘ Report to the Indian Nation” released by four historians in 1991. The report said that there is no basis to prove that the site of Babri Masjid is the birthplace of Lord Rama, and that the pillar carvings in the mosque do not bear any relation to a Vaishnavite among other claims. The SC went on to say in its verdict that the historians didn’t have the ASI material assessed by them and thus the 1991 report doesn’t carry any weight. See Also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-case-supreme-court-verdict-top-highlights/articleshow/71979856.cms">Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/inside-details-of-supreme-court-verdict-on-ayodhya-dispute-on-land-rights/articleshow/71983309.cms">Supreme Court ensured that the Ayodhya verdict can’t be used to take over land by citing faith</a>

The archaeological survey findings played a crucial part in the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute

The Sunni Central <keyword id="6410560" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="waqf">Waqf</keyword> Board on Tuesday decided that it will not file a review petition against the Supreme Court's verdict on the <keyword id="186591" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya-dispute">Ayodhya dispute</keyword>, its chairman Zufar Farooqi said. The important meeting of the board, attended by seven of the eight members, decided not to file a review petition against the apex court's decision, he said. Six members present were of the view that review petition should not be filed, Farooqi said. He said the board was yet to decide whether to accept a five-acre land given by the apex court for building a mosque in <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword>. The members feel that they need more time to decide on the matter and also ensure that it is appropriate as per the Shariat, Farooqi said. The Supreme Court, in its verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title case on November 9, said the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, who was one of the three litigants in the case.

Sunni Central Waqf Board to not file review petition against SC verdict on Ayodhya dispute

<ul><li>Give Muslims another site for a mosque, the Supreme Court ordered quashing the division of land by the Allahabad High Court.</li><li>This is a historic judgement from the Supreme Court in the Ram Mandir (temple) - Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute being fought in courts at least since 1885.</li><li>The central government has been vested with the disputed land and to come up with a scheme for the construction of a temple in Ayodhya.</li><li>The Muslims should be given a separate 5-acre site for the construction of a mosque, the SC ordered while calling the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law.</li></ul>In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India has ordered that Muslims be given a separate 5-acre site to build a mosque, while holding the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law. At the same time, Justice Gogoi, while reading out a unanimous verdict, ordered that the Hindus will get to construct a Ram Mandir (temple) at the disputed site in Ayodhya, which the Hindus believe is the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Constitution bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice Abdul Nazeer read out a unanimous verdict in the Ram Mandir (temple)- Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute that has lasted for centuries, and being fought in the courts since 1885. The verdict is expected to settle the issue that has shaped India's politics for nearly 30 years now. <div type="Youtube" id="YB8rCj6W2ks" title="Here are the top highlights from the Ayodhya verdict." thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YB8rCj6W2ks/mqdefault.jpg"></div>

 These are the key highlights of the order being read out: 1. Hindus get the possession of the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram temple. Possession of disputed 2.77 acre land will remain with Central government receiver. SC asks centre to frame scheme within 3 months and set up a trust for construction of a temple. 2. Alternate land should be allotted to the Muslims for a mosque. The Allahabad High Court was wrong in dividing the disputed Ayodhya site into three parts. 3. The government has to set up a trust that will enforce the Court's judgement. 4. Ram Janmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama) is not a juristic person and therefore filed by Nirmohi Akhara is barred by limitation. However, the Akhara that has sought the management rights to the temple may get adequate representation going forward, if the government deems fit. 5. The report from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), which cited the presence of a tenth-century structure beneath the Babri Masjid, has been upheld. But the court highlighted the fact that ASI refrained from recording a finding on whether mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. Today, the Supreme Court has quashed the Allahabad High Court verdict, which divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram-- the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary)-- and the Sunni Waqf Board. All three parties moved the Supreme Court against the order. Reaction of the Muslim side The Muslim side has expressed its displeasure with the Supreme Court verdict. While they agree with the parts of the verdict, they disagree with the handing over of the disputed site to the Hindus. Zafaryab Jilani, a litigant from the Muslim side, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, said that the verdict is "neither justice nor equity". "We are not satisfied with the judgement and the court has reached some wrong conclusions. We will go through the judgement to decide the future course of action... but SC verdict has to be respected. Everyone must remain calm," Jilani said adding that they are yet to decide whether they will move a review petition. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/people-prepare-for-supreme-court-verdict-in-the-ayodhya-case-in-pictures/articleshow/71979301.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/why-the-supreme-court-verdict-on-the-ayodhya-dispute-is-being-delivered-on-a-saturday/articleshow/71979382.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Here's why the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute is being delivered on a Saturday</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-verdict-on-ayodhya-legal-rights-of-lord-rama-and-other-gods/articleshow/71948927.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">In India, Gods, rivers, and animals can pay taxes, hold property, sue, and get sued⁠— and that’s an important factor in the Ayodhya case</a>

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

<ul><li>It said that the office of <keyword id="6363345" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="cji">CJI</keyword> will come under Right to Information act (<keyword id="6356198" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="RTI">RTI</keyword>). </li><li>This means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application.</li><li>However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. </li></ul> The <keyword id="6354977" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Supreme-Court">Supreme Court</keyword> of India has made its <keyword id="42759" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice">chief justice</keyword> accountable to the public. It said that the office of CJI will come under Right to Information (RTI) which means that information can be sought by anybody by filing an application. “RTI office of <keyword id="45053" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Justice-of-India">Chief Justice of India</keyword> is a public authority under RTI. Judicial independence has to be kept in mind while dealing with transparency,” ruled SC in its order. However, Justice Ramana who pronounced the verdict also said that RTI should not be allowed to be used as a tool of surveillance. "Nobody wants to remain in the state of darkness or keep anybody in the state of darkness. The question is drawing a line. In the name of transparency, you can't destroy the institution," the SC bench said. 2010 or now? This order mirrors the Delhi High Court judgement which said that judicial independence was not the privilege of a judge but a responsibility. The case was filed by an RTI activist S C Agarwal who had engaged prominent lawyer Prashant Bhushan to file the case. The controversial case had triggered a debate between transparency and judicial freedom. Bhushan had famously questioned if judges inhabit a “different universe” and described their reluctance to part information as “disturbing”. This is the second important judgement that Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has pronounced in the last week, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-case-supreme-court-verdict-top-highlights/articleshow/71979856.cms">after AYodhya case order on Saturday (November 9). </a>

You Searched For "sc on ayodhya case" and got 7 results

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

BI India Bureau

The Waqf Boards and their stance on the Ayodhya dispute awaiting Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case

BI India Bureau

The archaeological survey findings played a crucial part in the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute

Sanchita Dash

Sunni Central Waqf Board to not file review petition against SC verdict on Ayodhya dispute

PTI

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

Chief Justice of India will now come under RTI lens, says Supreme Court

Preeti

Katya

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides