oppn parties The Ayodhya Verdict: First Impressions

News Snippets

  • US House of Representative Foreign Affairs Committee chief, Elliot Engel, says "Chinese aggression" against India in Ladakh shows China is "willing to bully its neighbours"
  • Cyclone Nisagra expected to hit Mumbai with wind speeds of 100 kmph. The city placed on red alert
  • Monsoon hits Kerala, IMD says northern India too will get "good" rain
  • Moody's downgrades India's sovereign rating to Baa3, bringing it at par with other rating firms.
  • If the middle seat is used on flights, the passenger must be given a wrap-around cover in addition to mask and face shield, says the DGCA
  • The Union Cabinet approves many schemes for farmers, MSMEs and street vendors that were announced in the Covid-19 economic package
  • List of banned foreign items at Army canteens withdrawn after it was found that several Indian firms were also on the list
  • India and China seem to be headed for a longer stand-off at the border as the troops of both sides bring in heavy weaponry
  • The Centre has asked ISPs to block WeTransfer, which is now not available in India
  • Major shake-up in West Bengal BJP, those who switched to the party from the TMC given important posts
  • With 7573 new cases on Monday, India's total Covid-19 cases inch towards the 2-lakh mark
  • MSP of Kharif crops raised to increase the income of farmers
  • In a setback for aviation firms, jet fuel price has been increased by 48 percent
  • Terrorists strike on the outskirts of Srinagar, kill 2 BSF men
  • Alluding to the border dispute with India, Nepal PM says "Indian virus" is more dangerous than the Chinese or Italian virus
India Commentary wishes to all its readers a very Happy Id-Ul-Fitr
oppn parties
The Ayodhya Verdict: First Impressions

By Sunil Garodia

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator. Writes for a number of publications.

In the end, the judges went by evidence and arrived at a unanimous decision. They clearly stated that the masjid was not built on vacant land. They also stated that the findings of the Archaeological Society of India (ASI) cannot be disputed. It also categorically said that the Sunni Wakf Board (SuWB) failed to support its arguments with evidence. As a corollary, it dismissed the Nirmohi Akhada's claim for shebait rights and the Special Leave Petition filed by the Shia Wakf Board (ShWB) disputing the SuWB right to be a party to the suit.

The court restored the ownership of the disputed land to the Centre. It gave the inner area, measuring 2.77 acres, of the disputed structure to Ram Lalla, the Hindu deity that was deemed to be a juridical person. It gave the periphery of the structure to a separate trust. It asked the Centre to draw up a plan to construct the temple and take a decision on how the rest of the land could be used.

The court was also categorical in saying that although the Muslims had proved that they used to pray at the disputed site from 1857 to 1949 when they were ousted after idols were placed in the so-called garbh-griha, they had absolutely failed to prove that they had exclusive possession of the site before 1857. This was a major drawback.

One feels that the fact that the Muslims failed to prove exclusive possession of the disputed land before 1857, coupled with the fact that the ASI said that there was evidence that the masjid was not constructed on vacant, as also the fact that namaz was not offered at the site since 1949 guided the court to arrive at the decision. Also, once Ram Lalla was recognized as a deity, as a juridical person, there was no legal barrier in transferring the right to him.