In the matter of M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors, dated November 09, 2019, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, read out a unanimous judgment of the five-judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) comprising justices SA Bobde, Ashok Bhushan, DY Chandrachud and S Abdul Nazeer and Chief Justice himself , in the Ayodhya land dispute case ruling in favour of the Ram Janmabhoomi and said there will be Ram Mandir at the disputed site and Muslims will be given an alternate 5 acre land for their mosque.
The title is decided not on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence
The Supreme court said, “in the present case, this Court is tasked with an adjudicatory task of unique dimension. The dispute is over immovable property. The court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence. The law provides us with parameters as clear but as profound as ownership and possession. In deciding title to the disputed property, the court applies settled principles of evidence to adjudicate upon which party has established a claim to the immovable property.“
Clear Evidence of worship by Hindus in the outer and Inner Courtyard of the premises
The Supreme Court said, “On the balance of probabilities, there is clear evidence to indicate that the worship by the Hindus in the outer courtyard continued unimpeded in spite of the setting up of a grill-brick wall in 1857. Their possession of the outer courtyard stands established together with the incidents attaching to their control over it. As regards the inner courtyard, there is evidence on a preponderance of
probabilities to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857.”
5 acres of Land Allotted to the Sunni Waqf Board
The supreme court negated the decision of the High Court of Allahabad which by three-way bifurcated the disputed land. The Supreme court held that Lord Ram is a juristic person. By invoking Article 142, it directed the allottment of land admeasuring 5 acres to the Sunni Central Waqf Board either by the Central Government out of the acquired land or by the Government of Uttar Pradesh within the city of Ayodhya.
Directed to set up a Trust with the Board of Trustees by invoking its power under Article 142
The Supreme Court gave direction for the setting up of trust and said, “The Central Government shall, within a period of three months from the date of this judgment, formulate a scheme pursuant to the powers vested in it under Sections 6 and 7 of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993. The scheme shall envisage the setting up of a trust with a Board of Trustees or any other appropriate body under Section 6. The scheme to be framed by the Central Government shall make necessary provisions in regard to the functioning of the trust or body including on matters relating to the management of the trust, the powers of the trustees including the construction of a temple and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters. “
Was Lord Rama actually born on the disputed site?
Though the judgment is believed to be landmark the supreme court failed to arrive on a decision as to whether on the disputed site Lord Rama was born.