Ayodhya Verdict

Ayodhya: The Legal Odyssey to Ram Mandir
After a long wait of 500 years, Bhagwan Ramlala on 22 January 2024 came to be consecrated at his janmasthal in Ayodhya. Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya is a manifestation of unbridled faith and continuous struggle by people of Bharat for reclaiming Shri Ram Janmabhoomi.
This article attempts to sketch out the legal history by unravelling the key events that led to the final verdict in the matter as well as to analyse the noteworthy aspects of the said verdict.
Explore Timeline
The Verdict
Centuries Long Legal Odyssey
The dispute in the appeals filed before the Supreme Court has arisen out of four regular suits which were instituted between 1950 and 1989. However, the seeds of the legal dispute were sown as far as in January 1885 when Mahant Raghubar Das filed a legal suit to build a temple on the ‘Chabutra’ (platform) outside the structure. The case was dismissed, but the dispute was far from over.
Verdictum
Column| Unravelling The Quest In Courts For Ram Mandir
After a long wait of 500 years,  Bhagwan Ramlala on 22 January 2024 is going to be consecrated at his janmasthal  in Ayodhya. Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya is a manifestation of unbridled faith  and...
January 1885
Mahant Raghubar Das filed the first suit seeking to build a temple in the adjoining land.
During the hearing, a map of the area was drawn showing the structure & its inner courtyard under Muslims’ possession, while the outer courtyard with the Chabutra was under Hindus’ possession.  
Site plan of Babri Structure Ramjanamsthan chabutra submitted by Mahant Raghubar Das in Suit no: 61/280 of 1885 (Mahant Raghubar Das vs Secretary of State and others)
24 December 1885
Sub-Judge Faizabad dismissed the suit, however, observing that there could be no question or doubt regarding the possession and ownership of the Hindus over the Chabutra.
18 March 1886
The District Judge dismissed the appeal against the judgment but struck off the observations relating to the ownership of Hindus of the Chabutra.
1 November 1886
The Judicial Commissioner of Oudh dismissed the second Appeal, noting that the Mahant had failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra.
22 December 1949
The idol of Bhagwan Ram appeared inside the structure, followed by pooja initiated by devotees.
 The erstwhile Government locked the entrance declaring it to be a "contested area".
16 January 1950
A suit was instituted by Gopal Singh Visharad (Suit 1) before the Civil Judge at Faizabad, alleging that he was being prevented by officials of the government from entering the inner courtyard of the disputed site to offer worship. 
A declaration was sought to allow the plaintiff to offer prayers in accordance with the rites and tenets of Santan Dharma at the main Janmabhumi, near the idols, within the inner courtyard, without hindrance.
19 January 1950
Court ordered restraint on attempts to prevent the idols from being removed from the disputed site and from causing interference in doing puja. 
On 26 May 1955, the appeal against the interim order was dismissed by the High Court.
5 December 1950
Another suit was instituted by Paramhans Ramchandra Das (Suit 2) before the Civil Judge, Faizabad seeking similar prayers. Suit 2 was subsequently withdrawn on 18 September 1990.
1 April 1950
Court Commissioner was appointed in Suit 1 to prepare a map of the disputed premises.
25 June 1950
Commissioner submitted a report, together with two site plans of the disputed premises which were numbered as Plan no.s 1 and 2.
Site Map [Plan 1]
Site Map [Plan 2]
17 December 1959
Nirmohi Akhara filed a suit (Suit 3) seeking possession of the said land on which the structure stood, as well as to hand over the management and charge of the temple.
18 December 1961
UP Sunni Waqf Board filed a suit (Suit 4) seeking possession of the structure and removal of the idol of Ram Lalla.
6 January 1964
The trial of Suits 1, 3 and 4 was consolidated and Suit 4 was made the leading case.
 1984
Viswa Hindu Parishad constituted a group to begin the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement under the leadership of Lal Krishna Advani.
25 January 1986
Advocate Umesh Chandra Pandey approached the Sessions Court appealing for the gates of the structure to be unlocked and to allow darshan within the inner courtyard.
1 February 1986
District Judge allowed pooja and darshan by ordering the locks to be removed. In response, a Babri Mosque Action Committee was created
1 July 1989
Deoki Nandan Agrawal, on behalf of the deity (Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman) and the birthplace of Lord Ram (Asthan Shri Ram Janmabhumi) filed a title suit (Suit 5) in respect of the disputed premises. Suit 5 was tried with the other suits.
10 July 1989
All suits were transferred to the Allahabad High Court.
21 July 1989
A three judge Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice of the High Court for the trial of the suits.
14 August 1989
On an application by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the High Court passed an interim order on 14 August 1989, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property in dispute.
9 November, 1989
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) performed a shilanyas (foundation laying ceremony) at the site, setting a deadline of October 30, 1990 to build a Ram temple.
25 September 1990
Lal Krishna Advani launched a rath yatra from Somanth to Ayodhya.
30 October 1992
40,000 Karsevaks gathered at the bridge leading to Ayodhya as the VHP prepared to hold a 14-kosi parikrama (procession) around the site and a ceremony at the grounds adjoining the structure. 
Karsevaks scaled the domes of Babri Structure. The then CM ordered police to open fire at the crowd. 
Dozens killed. The Babri Structure remained intact.
6 December 1992
Karsevaks entered into the disputed area and demolished the entire structure with the three domes.
A make-shift temple was created.
16 December 1992
A committee led by retired High Court Justice M. S. Liberhan was constituted to look into circumstances leading to the demolition of the Babri Structure and the communal riots.
After 16 years and 399 sittings, the inquiry commission submitted its report to then-PM Manmohan Singh in 2009.
7 January 1993
The erstwhile government led by Narasimha Rao issued an ordinance acquiring the 67.7 acres of land.
Subsequently an Act titled Acquisition of Certain Areas at Ayodhya Act, 1993 was passed.
File upload
Acquisition of Certain Area in Ayodhya Act 1993-33.pdf
331.5 KB
1994
 The constitutional validity of the Act was questioned in Ismail Faruqui & Ors. v. Union of India which was decided by a majority of 3:2 upholding the acquisition and constitutionality of the Act, except Section 4(3) which abated all pending suits & legal proceedings without providing alternative dispute resolution mechanism.
 SC also ruled that offering namaz at mosque was not integral to Islam.  
File upload
DR-M-Ismail-Faruqi-v-Union-of-INdia.pdf
3.6 MB
24 October 1994
A reference to the Supreme Court under Article 143 of the Constitution was also made by the President. 
President’s questions: Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed on the ground where the Babri Structure was constructed
Court’s answers: The Constitution Bench declined to answer the Presidential reference. ​
Thus, all pending suits and proceedings in relation to the disputed premises stood revived.
High Court Proceedings
24 July 1996
The recording of oral evidence before the High Court commenced
23 October 2002
During the course of the hearings, the High Court issued directions on 23 October 2002 to the Archaeological Survey of India to carry out a scientific investigation and have the disputed site surveyed by Ground Penetrating Technology or Geo-Radiology.
5 March 2003
In order to facilitate a further analysis, the High Court directed the ASI on 5 March 2003 to undertake the excavation of the disputed site. A fourteen-member team was constituted, and a site plan was prepared indicating the number of trenches to be laid out and excavated.
On 22 August 2003, ASI submitted its final report.
The arguments in the High Court were mainly led by Advocate Ravi Shanker Prasad and Senior Advocate Zafaryab Jilani.
The High Court examined 533 exhibits and depositions of 87 witnesses traversing 13,990 pages. Besides this, counsel relied on over a thousand reference books in Sanskrit, Hindi, Persian, Turkish, French and English, ranging from subjects as diverse as history, culture, archaeology and religion. 
30 Septmeber 2010
The High Court delivered its judgment in the four suits on 30 September 2010. 
The High Court held that the suits filed by the Sunni Central Waqf Board and by Nirmohi Akhara were barred by limitation.
Despite having held that those two suits were barred by time, the High Court held in a split 2:1 verdict that the Hindu and Muslim parties were joint holders of the disputed premises, and each of them was entitled to one third of the disputed property, with the remaining one-third being granted to the Nirmohi Akhara.
elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in
eLegalix - Ayodhya Bench Decision
Decision of Hon'ble Special Full Bench hearing Ayodhya Matters(Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid Cases) at High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,  Lucknow Bench
  Proceedings in Supreme Court
9 May 2011
Supreme Court admitted several appeals and stayed the operation of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court.
During the pendency of the appeals, parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed premises.
10 August 2015
A three judge Bench headed by Justice T S Thakur allowed replacement of "old and worn out" tarpaulin sheet, jute matting, bamboo, polythene sheet and ropes at the makeshift Ram temple by new ones of the same size and quality  in Ayodhya, to be undertaken and completed under the supervision of two observers.
March 2017
Then-Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar urged disputing parties to attempt an amicable out-of-court settlement, after BJP MP Subramanian Swamy mentioned the appeal against the Allahabad High Court verdict for urgent hearing.
August 2017
The Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating it was willing to accept a mosque in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.
The Shia Board also dismissed the Sunni Waqf Board’s claim, calling them “interlopers led by hardliners, fanatics and non-believers” who opposed a peaceful settlement with Hindus.
5 December 2017
On the 25th anniversary of the Babri Structure demolition, the Supreme Court began hearing 13 appeals arising from the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 judgment in the Ayodhya dispute.
The Court rejected the request of the Muslim parties to defer the hearing until after July 15, 2019 (post Lok Sabha elections).
14 March 2018
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether the ruling in Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994), which had held that a mosque is not essential to the practice of Islam, required reconsideration.
27 September 2018
The three-judge Bench, by a 2:1 majority, declined to refer Ismail Faruqui for reconsideration.
The Bench directed that the appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgment be listed for hearing.
8 January 2019
By an administrative order, the Chief Justice of India constituted a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the Ayodhya title dispute appeals.
26 February 2019
Supreme Court referred the parties to mediation, appointing a court-monitored process to explore a permanent solution.
8 March 2019
A mediation panel was constituted, comprising:
Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Former Supreme Court Judge (Chairperson)
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
Mr. Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate
10 May 2019
Time granted to mediators was extended.
2 August 2019
Since no settlement was reached, the Supreme Court directed that the hearing of the appeals should commence.
6 August 2019
The Constitution Bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Sarad Arvind Bobde, Dr. Dhananjaya Chandrachud, Asok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer began hearing the arguments in the case. 
Mr K Parasaran and Dr Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Advocates led the arguments from both the sides.
The Constitutional Bench Deliberations
The Constitution Bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, Justices Sarad Arvind Bobde, Dr. Dhananjaya Chandrachud, Asok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer began hearing day-to-day arguments in the case. 
After a marathon 40 days of hearing that witnessed arguments of all hues and colour that held the nation in complete attention, the judgment was reserved.
In order to determine the questions raised in the appeals, the Court framed 16 issues, which can broadly be categorised as, first, being the maintainability of the suits; and second, being the determination of title of the property.
Key Issues Framed by the Court
Maintainability of Suits
Whether the suits are barred by limitation?
Whether the 1885 suit filed by Mahant Raghubar Das attracts the doctrine of res judicata to the suits filed by the Hindu parties?
Whether Nirmohi Akhara has the rights of management over the disputed site?
Determination of Title
Was the disputed site, Ram Janmabhoomi, a juristic entity?
Was there a temple beneath the disputed structure?
If yes, whether the existence of a temple beneath the disputed structure will give title to the Hindu parties?
Was there a dedication of the disputed property to the Almighty by Babur, making the land inalienable?
If not, was there continued use of the disputed site for prayers by the Muslims, making it a waqf by user?
Possessory rights over outer courtyard and inner courtyard
The Final Verdict
The Constitution Bench passed a unanimous judgment on 9 November 2019 deciding the title of the property in favour of the deity Shri Ram Lalla where the Hindu parties have been seeking to construct a temple for Bhagwan Ram Lalla. 
1
The Court also granted a perpetual injunction against other parties from interfering in the construction of a new temple at the site. The Bench began its conclusion by stating that the facts, evidence and oral arguments of the case had traversed the realms of history, archaeology, religion and the law. The law however must stand apart from political contestations over history, ideology and religion.
2
The Bench stated that it was tasked with an adjudicatory task of unique dimension, in the sense that it involved the gigantic task of deciding a dispute which clearly was a religious one with unprecedented importance, however in the eyes of law, it was a dispute over ownership of an immovable property.
3
The Bench held that the Court does not decide title on the basis of faith or belief but on the basis of evidence to decide the ownership and possession. It was held that for 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.
4
Having addressed the preliminary considerations regarding maintainability of suits, the Court went on to address whether either of Sunni Waqf Board or Shri Ram Lalla Virajman had established a title to the disputed property by virtue of having continuous possession over the property. 
As the Nirmohi Akhara's suit was not maintainable, the question then became whether the deity or the Sunni Waqf Board had the possession of the site.
5
The Court held that the site was a composite whole. It said that the installation of a railing by the British in 1857 did not bring about a legal sub-division of the property into inner and outer courtyard. Nevertheless, it relied on the division as a tool for analysing the two parties' possession claims.
On balance of probabilities, there was 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. Specifically, it pointed out the consistent pattern of possession and worship in the outer courtyard post erection of the railings by the British in 1857.
6
Moreover, the Court held the existence of specific points of Hindu worship (Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar) in the outer courtyard. The opening of additional doors by the British for entry into the outer courtyard due to the rush of Hindu devotees also was taken as indicating the consistent pattern of worship. All these cumulatively were found to have negated the claim by Muslims that they had settled possession of the outer courtyard.
As regards the inner courtyard, it was held that while the inner courtyard contained the structure, the Sunni Waqf Board had failed to establish that it had been dedicated as waqf by continuous usage. Rather, there was ample evidence to establish worship by the Hindus prior to the annexation of Oudh by the British in 1857.
7
After the setting up of the grill-brick wall, the structure continued to exist and namaz began to be offered within its precincts. Specifically, it pointed to the admission by Moazzin of the Mosque in 1858 that previously, the symbol of Janmasthan had been inside the disputed site for hundreds of years and the Hindus performed puja inside the three-domed structure.
8
It was further held that the three-way bifurcation by the High Court was legally unsustainable and that dividing the land, which is merely of 1500 square yards in dimensions, will not subserve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquillity.
9
The Bench further held that on a balance of probabilities, the evidence in respect of the possessory claim of the Hindus to the composite whole of the disputed property stands on a better footing than the evidence adduced by the Muslims, and hence they are entitled to the disputed property. 
Directions
1
Exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court directed that in order to promote tolerance and mutual co-existence to nourish the secular commitment of the nation, land measuring 5 acres be allotted 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.
2
Union Government was directed to form a scheme within three months for formation of a trust for construction of a temple and all necessary, incidental and supplemental matters. 
Once the Trust came into existence, possession of the inner and outer courtyards was directed to be handed over to the Board of Trustees of the Trust.
The right to worship at the disputed property was affirmed subject to any restrictions imposed by the relevant authorities with respect to the maintenance of peace and order and the performance of orderly worship.
Adequate representation to the Nirmohi Akhara in the trust formed under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.
Read the Complete Judgment here.
View more
Addendum to the Judgment
In an addenda to the main judgment, one of the Judges of the Bench who like others chose to remain anonymous — while agreeing with the overall decision, gave separate reasons specifically on the question of whether the disputed structure was indeed the birthplace of Lord Ram according to Hindu faith and belief.
The Judge observed that:
The sequence of historical events indicated that Hindus had always believed the three-dome structure stood at the Janmasthan (birthplace) of Lord Ram.
The construction of an iron wall, which divided the premises and kept Hindus outside the three-domed inner structure, did not alter their faith or belief regarding the birthplace.
The worship at the Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard was symbolic worship of Lord Ram, who was believed to have been born within the premises.
Accordingly, the Judge held that the faith and belief of Hindus, both prior to and after the structure's construction,  consistently remained that the Janmasthan of Lord Ram was at the disputed site.
This faith and belief, the Judge found, stood proved by both documentary and oral evidence.
Final Legal Resolution
However, attempts to create hurdles in reclaiming the Janmabhoomi continued, with a review petition being filed by M. Siddiq through LRs seeking review of the judgment and order dated 9 November, 2019.
The petition was ultimately dismissed on December 12, 2019 by a 5-judge Bench of the Supreme Court thus settling the legal dispute forever.
File upload
Ayodhya - Review_Petitions_Order.pdf
38.9 KB
Post-Verdict: The New Dawn
The Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Tirtha Kshetra trust was established on 5 February 2020 to oversee the construction of the Shri Ram Temple. 
On 5 August 2020, the Prime Minister Narendra Modi laid the foundation stone for the Shri Ram Temple. The ritual was consecrated with sacred soil from all pilgrim centres and water from all the holy rivers of Bharat.
Subsequently, with the contribution from the first citizen being the President of Bharat on the auspicious day of Makara Sankranti, the 44-day-long "Nidhi Samarpan Abhiyan" was launched which could very well be one of the biggest outreach campaigns even globally, wherein over 12 crores families from about 5.5 lakh cities and villages, ranging across all sects and sections of the society overwhelmingly participated, and contributed to the construction of the grand mandir. 
The first prāṇa pratiṣṭhā (consecration) of the Ram Mandir was held on 22 January 2024, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi amidst elaborate Vedic rituals.
On this day, the idol of Shri Ram was ceremonially installed in the sanctum sanctorum, marking the spiritual completion of the temple’s core.
After the ceremony, the temple was opened to the public, allowing devotees from across India and abroad to offer darshan of Ram Lalla.
Shri Ram Mandir is a manifestation of the centuries long struggle for reclaiming cultural and civilisational sacred spaces. 
Along with the construction of the grand mandir at the Shri Ram Janmbhoomi in Ayodhya, the social and national life inspired by the values of Shri Ram will be established through collective resolve and efforts, thus paving the way forward for building a Bharatiya society and state, modern in its outlook and form, yet rooted in its cultural and civilisation.