Ayodhya Verdict Pro-Hindu

The Allahabad High Court has given the much-awaited verdict on the Ayodhya case (the Babri Masjid - Ram Janmabhoomi dispute), and the judgement is that the disputed land in Ayodhya will be divided into 3 parts - the portion where the idols of Lord Rama are being declared as Lord Rama's birthplace, another portion (Sita Rasoi) is being given to the Nirmohi Akhara, and the rest is being given to the Wakf Board.

The Allahabad High Court's verdict in the Ayodhya case has the following main points:

1. The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the disputed site in Ayodhya is indeed the birth place of Lord Rama. It has given the legal rationale for this in the judgement.

2. The Allahabad High Court has said in its Ayodhya judgement that the disputed building (that was razed in 1992 by kar sevaks) was not a mosque, as its construction violated the tenets of Islam.

3. The Allahabad High Court has ruled in its Ayodhya verdict that the disputed building (mosque) was built after demolishing a Hindu temple that existed there.

4. The Allahabad High Court's Ayodhya judgement also says that idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure (the Babri Masjid) in the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd December 1949.

5. The Allahabad High Court's Ayodhya judgement also dismisses OOS No. 4 of 1989, the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs UP, Lucknow, and others vs. Gopal Singh Visharad and others and OOS No. 3 of 1989, Nirmohi Akhara and Another Vs. Sri Jamuna Prasad Singh and others for being barred by time.

6. Finally, the Allahabad High Court has said that the property referred to in the suit is the site of the janmabhumi of Sri Ramachandraji, and that Hindus in general had the right to worship there. It has however decided to split the site into 3 parts, and give the site with the idols (i. e. where the Babri Masjid stood) to the Hindus, the Sita Rasoi site to the Nirmohi Akhara, and the rest of the place to the Sunni Wakf Board.

The 3-judge special bench comprised Justice S U Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and D V Sarma, and the judgement runs into 8,000 pages. Meanwhile, status quo will continue on the land for the next 3 months.