The Supreme Court, on Saturday, 9 November, pronounced its verdict in the long-running Ayodhya title dispute between the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman.
The court directed that Hindus will get the disputed land subject to conditions. The inner and outer courtyards will be handed over to a Centre-led Trust, and a suitable plot of land measuring 5 acres shall be given to the Sunni Waqf Board.
In the wake of the judgement, associate professor at Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) Hilal Ahmed said that the Supreme Court evaluated the historical and archaeological evidences before giving the verdict.
“The judgment upheld the secular law of the country, as the court also reiterated that it was not done to merely satisfy the emotions of Hindus,” he said.
The judgment made it clear that the claims by the Hindu parties over the disputed land were substantiated with evidences and were hence, stronger, and while the Sunni Waqf Board also presented their evidences, they fared poorly when they were scrutinised, he said.
The judges had unanimously held that the site was “one composite whole.”
Ahmed said that the verdict also shows that the Supreme Court has acknowledged the significance of the structure of Babri Masjid.
The judges had recognised wrongs done to the Muslim community by the placing of idols in the Babri Masjid in 1949 and the destruction of the mosque itself in 1992.
So, What’s the Problem?
In the analysis of the verdict, the important aspect to note, he said, is that the Supreme Court's verdict reveals that it was driven by the need to resolve the communal issue.
He said that the Ayodhya case should have been strictly viewed as a land dispute issue, but the top court dealt with it as a conflict between Hindus and Muslims.