Ayodhya Verdict: It was always referred to as Janmaasthan

ayodhya22New Delhi, Nov 09: During his cross examination, one Mohammad Qasim admitted that what he calls Babri Masjid is called ‘Janamsthan by Hindus’.

He stated, “after that there is Babri Masjid on its one side. It is true that the place I call ‘Babri Masjid’ is called ‘Janamsthan’ by Hindus.”

Read more


Ayodhya: Title not decided on basis of faith or belief, but on evidence says SC

ayodhyaverdictNew Delhi, Nov 09: While delivering the Ayodhya Verdict, the Supreme Court said that the facts, evidence and oral arguments of the present case have traversed the realms of history, archaeology, religion and the law.

The law must stand apart from political contestations over history, ideology and religion. For a case replete with references to archaeological foundations, we must remember that it is the law which provides the edifice upon which our multicultural society rests.

Ayodhya Verdict: What the ASI and historic records by travellers said

ayodhyaaaaNew Delhi, Nov 09: The report of the ASI was relied upon heavily by the Supreme Court while delivering the verdict in the Ayodhya case.

Let us trace what the ASI had said and the position that it indicated:

Read more

Hindus continued to asset rights to pray inside 3 doomed structure: SC

ramjanmabhoomiNew Delhi, Nov 09: The Hindu worship at Ramchabutra, Sita Rasoi and at other religious places including the setting up of a Bhandar clearly indicated their open, exclusive and unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard, the Supreme Court held.

The Muslims have not been in possession of the outer courtyard. Despite the construction of the wall in 1858 by the British and the setting up of the Ramchabutra in close-proximity of the inner dome, Hindus continued to assert their right to pray inside the three-domed structure.

Read full 1,045 page Supreme Court judgement on Ayodhya

ayodhya1New Delhi, Nov 09: The verdict was a unanimous one and the Ayodhya dispute has finally been solved by a five judge bench in a 1,045 page verdict.

The Supreme Court held that the Hindus would get the disputed land at Ayodhya.

Faith of Hindus that Ayodhya is birthplace of Ram undisputed says SC

ayodhya22New Delhi, Nov 09: The faith of Hindus that Ayodhya is the birthplace of Ram is undisputed the Supreme Court held.

The Hindus consider Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram and their faith is undisputed the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi held.

Ayodhya: Sunni Waqf Board failed to establish possessory rights over disputed property says SC

sunni-wafqNew Delhi, Nov 09: The Supreme Court today held that the Sunni Waqf Board has not been able to prove its exclusive right and that the entire land has to be considered as a whole.

While citing evidence that Hindus continued praying, the SC ruled that Muslims have not been establish possessory rights over the disputed property.

Read more

Not mere conjecture: How the ASI report shaped the Ayodhya Verdict

ayodhyaaaaNew Delhi, Nov 09: The Supreme Court while delivering the Ayodhya Verdict relied heavily on the findings by the ASI.

The court said that the report of the ASI cannot be dismissed as conjecture or just guess work.

Ayodhya Verdict Explained in 10 points

ayodhya1New Delhi, Nov 09: The Supreme Court today held that the Hindus would get the disputed land at Ayodhya, while the Sunni Waqf Board would be given alternate land of 5 acres.

Here is the verdict in a nutshell:

Hindus to get land subject to conditions

Central government to frame a scheme under Article 142

Trust to be formed

Centre must set a trust with board of trustees within 3 months

Inner courtyard will be handed over to the trust

Suitable plot of land measuring 5 acre shall be given to Sunni Waqf Board either by the state or by the Centre.

Read more 

Nimrohi Akhara not shebait of the disputed Ayodhya site: SC

nirmohiakharaNew Delhi, Nov 09: The Supreme Court on Saturday held that the suit filed by the Nimrohi Akhara is not maintainable. The court said that the Nimrohi Akhara has no shebait rights.

It held that it has no priestly rights and the suit filed by it is not maintainable. Further the court directed the setting up of a trust to construct the Ram Temple at the disputed site.