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

<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

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

<ul><li>In March, 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared that rivers, Ganga and Yamuna, would be legally treated as “living people,” and enjoy “all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person”.</li><li>However, in September 2018, Justice Chandrachud of India’s Supreme Court said that while a deity or an idol can own property and have other legal rights, but it cannot granted fundamental rights.</li><li>So in the case between those who want a temple for Lord Rama in Ayodhya and those who want to restore a demolished mosque, one of the parties to the case is Lord Rama himself⁠.</li></ul>One of the important questions in front of the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice <keyword id="245445" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ranjan-Gogoi">Ranjan Gogoi</keyword> is the following: Is the Ram Janmabhoomi (the birthplace of Lord Rama) a juristic entity, independent of the presence of idols? And if so, is it immune from possession claims as a juristic entity? A juristic person, as opposed to a “natural person” (that is, a human being), is an entity whom the law vests with a personality. The practice began under the British administration of India. The British administrators held that the legal owner of a temple’s land and wealth was the deity, with a shebait or manager acting as trustee. Much like a corporation and its directors. However, one cannot place a deity and bestow it with wealth and property. For a deity to be considered a legal entity only “when it is consecrated and installed at a public place for the public at large,” according to the judgement in the Yogendra Nath Naskar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1969) case. This entails a Hindu ritual called the ‘prana pratishta’ after which the deity is believed to have come alive. However, a mosque, a church or a gurdwara cannot be considered as juristic entities because these are places where people gather to worship and are not objects of worship themselves, according to a Supreme Court verdict in 2000. 
	
	
	
	
	
	<div type="Slideshow" msid="71948744" hostid="261" title="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" firstImageMsid="71948747" slideCount="3"></div>

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

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><keyword id="58687" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bharatiya-Janata-Party">Bharatiya Janata Party</keyword> (BJP)’s Om Birla is nominated to become the 17th Lok Sabha Speaker. </li><li>The 57 year old Birla, was once a key leader of the Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha and reportedly has close ties with <keyword id="6355521" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="amit-shah">Amit Shah</keyword>. </li></ul>Om Birla, who was nomiated by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) yesterday is elected as the 17th Lok Sabha Speaker. He is going to succeed 76-year-old Sumitra Mahajan — the 16th Lok Sabha Speaker who did not contest the elections this time. However, there is no official announcement yet. Om Birla’s wife congratulated him by saying this was a proud moment for the family. <keyword id="513880" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Pinaki-Misra">Pinaki Misra</keyword>, the Biju Janata Dal’s parliamentary party leader in the Lok Sabha, said that his party, although not a member of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), had decided to support Birla. "The BJP, which has a clear majority in the Lok Sabha, has nominated Om Birla for the post of the Lok Sabha Speaker and sought our support for him. Since we have always had constructive cooperation with the Centre, we will support the proposal," said Mishra. The 57 year old Birla, was once a key leader of the Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha and reportedly has close ties with Amit Shah. He also played a significant role in BJP-led Ram Janmabhoomi movement in the 1990s. The decision to nominate Birla came soon after JP Nadda took the place as working BJP yuva president. Birla has worked closely with Nadda too. Om Birla worked as a Vice-President of BJP youth wing when Nadda was serving as the president of the same. Om Birla, who has been contesting as an MLA from Kota, kept winning from 2003 to 2014. He represented the Kota-Bundi Lok Sabha constituency. He<a href="https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/om-birla-won-t-be-first-two-time-mp-to-be-elected-as-lok-sabha-speaker-1551010-2019-06-18"> reportedly</a> had a case registered against him in 2018 during his entire political career. He was accused of accumulating assets disproportionate to his income. The <keyword id="49015" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Rajasthan-High-Court">Rajasthan High Court</keyword> dismissed the case in 2019.

You Searched For "Ram Janmabhoomi case" and got 5 results

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

BI India Bureau

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

BI India Bureau

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

BI India Bureau

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

PTI

Meet Om Birla,India’s newly elected Lok Sabha speaker

Preeti Soni

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides