M: 130


On 9th November, 2019, the Supreme Court of India declared the disputed land (i.e.2.77 acres) to Hindu deity, Ram and 5 acres alternate land to the Sunni Waft board to build a mosque. Court delivered a landmark judgement of 5 benched judge. The Supreme Court of India quashed the judgement of Allahabad High Court in which the land was divided into three parts 1/3 was given to Ram , 1/3 given to Sunni Waft Board and 1/3 was given to Nirmohi Akhara.


People think this verdict was started with the demolition of Babri masjid in 1980s but actually this verdict was started a long year ago. In 1528, According to the local traditions and inscriptions on the wall, it can be assumed that the Ram mandir was demolished and masjid was constructed on the orders of emperor Babur by Mir Baqi. There is no mention of   Masjid in Tuzuk-i-Baburi (Baburnama). This, however, could be because the pages of the book went missing. There is no mention of the birthplace of Lord Ram in it or anything more than passing mention of the Babri Masjid. Many historians say that Babri masjid was a symbol of the gay homosexual love of Mughal King Babur and his slave lover boy Baburi. Some says Babur built the masjid while some says Aurangzeb built it. Some people also says that Babur never visited the masjid. In 1859, British Administration allotted different areas to Hindus and Muslims for worship but due to civil suits filed by both parties the government locked the place in 1949. Before 1940, Babri Masjid was known as Masjid-i-Janmasthan which means mosque of the birth place. Then due to the case filed by Hindus claiming the land to be the place of Rama the Fizabad district court in 1986 ordered to reopen the gate for Hindus to worship over there. After 37 years the gate was reopened but Muslim protested the worship. The desire to built Ram Mandir was growing in the Hindus which leads to demolition of  Masjid. In 1989, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) started a new movement to reclaim and In 1990 ,Lal Krishna Advani started a Rath Yatra to Ayodhya and in his speech he said, “If Muslims are entitled to an Islamic atmosphere in Mecca, and if Christians are entitled to a Christian atmosphere in the Vatican, why is it wrong for the Hindus to expect a Hindu atmosphere in Ayodhya?” After this VJP won the election in Utter Pradesh and hence organised a rally of VHP and VJP leaded by Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti which leads to the demolition of Masjid. A commission named ‘Liberhan Commission’ was setup by the government of India to deal with the issue regarding the demolition of the masjid and it was reported that except Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, and Uma Bharti many other leaders such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan SinghPramod Mahajan , Vijayaraje Scindia, as well as VHP leaders like Giriraj Kishore and Ashok Singhal, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and former RSS leader K. N. Govindacharya were also involved in the rally. According to the Archaeological Survey many evidence was found which proves that the land is the place of Rama indicationg definite proof of mandir under the masjid but In Ramcharitmanas written by Tulsidas does not mention it as a place of pilgrimage in Ayodhya which suggests that there was no significant Hindu temple at the site of the Babri Mosque, or that it had ceased to be one, after the mosque was built. But in Valmiki Ramayana it is written that Ram birthplace id Ayodhya. In this verdict mainly 3 parties were involved i.e. RAM, NIRMOHI AKHARA, and SUNNI WAFT BOARD.


According to Hindu mythology Ram is one of the Avtar of Lord Vishnu. He, along with his wife Sita, are a picture of purity and marital devotion. He specifically come into the world to deal with the multi-headed demon Raavan. Ram’s father name was Dasaratha and mother name was Kausalya. Vishnu is considered to be the palanhara (the one who take care) of the world that is why he took avtar of Ram. Ram had 3 half brothers named Bharat, Shatrughana and Lakshman.  Ram defeated Raavan in an epic battle.


Nirmohi Akhara is a sect which owns many temples and mathas in India. It was established by Ramananda. They are vedic holy man or Sadhus. Nirmohi Akhara is the one who filed the suit to construct Ram Mandir.


Waqf is a permanent dedication of movable or immovable properties for religious, pious or charitable purposes as recognized by Muslim Law, given by philanthropists. Sunni Waft Board is an organisation of Muslims.


Main issues in this case was: –

  • Whether the building had been constructed on the site of an alleged Hindu temple   after demolishing the same as alleged by defendant
  • Whether the building stood dedicated to almighty God as alleged by the plaintiffs
  • Whether the building had been used by the members of the Muslim community for offering prayers from time immemorial.
  • Whether the Hindus in general and the devotees of ‘Bhagwan Sri Ram in particular have perfected right of prayers at the site by adverse and continuous possession
  • Whether the outer courtyard contained Ramchabutra, Bhandar and Sita Rasoi.
  • Whether the pillars inside and outside the building in question contain images of Hindu Gods and Goddesses. If the finding is in affirmative, whether on that account the building in question cannot have the character of mosque under the tenets of Islam.


The arguments between both the parties was based on many factors such as –


This case is not only about the land but the most important factor is about the faith of Hindus as well as Muslims. According to Shariyat that is not a masjid as which is build by destroying a building and if it has been done then the said land should be returned immediately, said by Md. Paigambar. According to Hindu Mythology, statue (Murti) of god is considered as alive. Therefore, in the eyes of law murti is a juristic person. Thus, Rama is considered as alive and can fight against his property. In its verdict, SC bench said, Ram is a deity, can be a juristic entity but Ram janmabhoomi cannot be a juristic entity.


William Finch, a businessman, talked about Ram janmbhoomi in Ayodhya but didn’t talk about masjid anywhere. A Foreign tourist Joseph Tiefenthalerand Robert Montgomery Martin also talked about Hindu faith on that place. The existence of Ram castle is also talked in East India Company gazetteer.  P Carnegy, Edward Thornton also talked about the existence of the mandir over there.


It was claimed that the written evidence of masjid is in the missing 2 pages of Baburnama. Some pictures of Shiv Tandav, Lotus, Hanuman, etc. on a black pole is there while taking picture in 1990. It is claimed that there was a temple of Vishnu and one building was made by destroying that temple. One more interesting fact which came into light that an FIR was filed on November 30, 1858, by one Md. Salim against a group of Nihang Sikhs who had installed their mark and written “Ram” inside the mosque. They also performed havan and puja. This became the first documentary evidence that Hindus were present inside the mosque.It was claimed that there was use of chuna and surkhi in the building which is not used in building a temple.

 The land is the land of Ram said by, Dr . Rajeev Dhawan, Md. Qasim, Md. Yaseen Haji , Mehboob Ahmed, Md. Hashim, Mahant Bhaskar Das, Ramanand Acharya Swami Haryacharya , directly or indirectly.

RES JUDICATA (means the thing has been judged) and ADVERSE POSSESSION (a person who does not have legal title to a piece of property acquires legal ownership based on continuous possession) were also claimed.


In the arguments by all the parties Muslim waft board and Nirmohi Akhara didn’t had the strong arguments while Ram Lalla had showed many evidence which proves the existence of the temple over there and the birth place of Ram as Court observed the ASI evidence.


Evidence is the most important factor in the eyes of law. It is proved that the masjid was build by destroying a building by documentary and oral evidence discussed above. The judgement in the favour of the Ram lalla by giving the land to him and alternate 5 acres land to the sunni waft board is appreciated. It would have been more appreciable if the court would have attempted to explain in its true sense and then taken stricter view on the demolition of the temple.