Why Supreme Court Ruled In Favour Of Ram Temple in Ayodhya | The Legal Lens | Crux+

A 5-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered
an unanimous verdict Here’s how to break it down The first question Why did Ram Lalla Virajman get the title of
the land so that a trust can then build a temple upon
it Now Ram Lalla Virajman was representing the deity Lord Ram A deity is always represented through the
next friend or guardian Ram Lalla Virajman could assert its title
by way of continued worshipping of that land, even when a 3-domed structure, the Babri
Mosque stood The Supreme Court took into account the fact
that even there was namaaz being offered, people were standing outside the railings,
treating this to be the birthplace of Lord Ram and offering their prayers at it How is the deity’s right being acknowledged
here? Now the deity Lord Ram. Supreme Court has
said it in multiple judgments in the past also that deity has a right, deity is a perpetual
minor. Deity’s right can be executed through the
next friend or the guardian Ram Lalla Virajman in this case happened to be asserting that very right. Now deity’s right has already been acknowledged
by the Supreme Court. Today’s verdict finds a reiteration of that
right when it said that Lord Ram in all the sense has the title of the disputed land itself Now will this judgment have any effect on
Sabarimala? I would not want to make a second guess on
that. But yes, there are two differences and two
similarities. In Sabarimala also, there is a question about
the right of the deity. It is the deity’s right which the worshippers
are trying to protect by preventing the women of menstruating age to enter the temple But then, the character of a deity is something
which the Ayodhya verdict has not ruled upon. In that case, Sabarimala the idol is supposed
to be a Naishtik Brahmachari. Here there was no question about the character
of the deity. So although there are similarities, worshippers
are trying to assert the right of their god. Through the Court, the constitutional court,
the character of the deity was never in question in the Ayodhya verdict Will this judgment have any impact on the
clamour around Kashi and Mathura temples? Now, I would say there is a 1991 Act, Place
of Worship Act which did exempt Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid title case out of its ambit when
it said that anybody who will try to change the religious nature of any structure which
stood as of 15 Aug, 1947 will be a punishable offence. This law is going to prohibit anybody else
from trying to offend any other religious structure or to stake its claim that something
else existed, pre-dated underneath a religious structure as it stands today In some other interesting observations from
the Supreme Court which helped Ram Lalla Virajman stake claim over the disputed property was
the Archaelogicial Survey of India’s report. Now that report the Supreme Court said can’t
be dismissed as being mere conjecture. Supreme Court went on to say that this report
did establish a few facts, including that there was a pre-dating structure underneath
the Babri Mosque. This structure was non-Islamic in nature,
it belonged to the 12th century and the artefacts and the inscriptions on the pillars would
go on to show that it was basically a Hindu religious structure. This was something which was corroborated
as evidence when Ram Lalla Virajman tried to say that Babri Masjid stood on a Hindu
structure. The travelogues and gazetteers were also relied
upon by the Supreme Court, when they said there has been proof of continued worshipping
of that place and that people believe that this place is the birthplace of Lord Ram. Another very interesting aspect of the judgment. Every judgment of the Supreme Court will have
the name of the judge who has authored the judgment. This was an unanimous judgment but then this
judgment did not carry the name of any of the judges. It was just the judgment which was supposed
to be authored by all of them together. Despite that, there is an additional judgment
in it. In that judgment there is one particular judge
who goes on to hold that yes, in my opinion, that particular place is the birthplace of
Lord Ram. But very interestingly, even the name of that
one judge has not been put into public domain by the Supreme Court. This is sure to indicate that the Supreme
Court wanted to tell the public, the people of India, that this is a judgment by the Supreme
Court, the highest court of the land, and not by any particular judge. How did Article 142 come into the picture? Under 142, Supreme Court has the inherent
jurisdiction and the authority to deliver any order to meet the ends of justice. This is an exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
by the Supreme Court under Article 142 by virtue that the Sunni Waqf Board has been
given 5 acres of land. Saying that they have also suffered wrongs
by being ousted and also by demolition that took place in 1992, Supreme Court said that
equity would demand that the Sunni Waqf Board should be given 5 acres of land in Ayodhya,
either by the Central govt or the state govt. Ayodhya verdict by the Supreme Court today
looks at giving finality to one of the most contentious and longest-pending disputes in
India’s judicial history. So Supreme Court in its judgment has tried
to accomodate all the parties and has said that secularism and to live in harmony is
what each and every citizen of India must look forward to, and should also respect all
the constitutional principles that is there. The Constitution speaks through the judges
is what the underlying principle of the Ayodhya verdict is.


  1. I liked your cartoon picture you used in thumbnail. I liked it a lot, it has so deep meaning and it describes perfectly how a common man took Ram lalla to court with him to give him justice and to prove his existence in his own motherland. Please tell me the name of cartoonist.

  2. Bhai english matt bol jo nahi ati hindi main bol apna lage ga,, abh, virajman means just to sit but word is used when their is someone great is involved. Second their where no namaaz going in that mandir. Just saw till 1.15 and I think where this video is going let it be verdict is been done nothing will happen even if you shout or try to convince a audience who has other languages as their mother tongue but will be convinced because "Heinglish" 😆.. Anyways I dislike this video

  3. That structure had nothing to do with Islam. It was a structure deliberately put up there to insult local population & their faith. Such a symbol of insult for others, if clears off all should be indeed happy, a symbol of bigotry is gone. It is good for all. Let no religion insult the other, and proudly maintain it as a precious monument.

  4. Both Hindu and Muslim brothers are happy and accepted this judgment. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board accepted the Supreme Court Judgement and Why are provoking other issues as examples and mentioning them. There are more than 1000 pages contains the details in the case which was submitted.
    I understood your perception. But don't portrait an individual's opinion to a generalized statement.
    As this is a public platform, good or bad, negative or positive, true or false will deliver fast.

    Between, you explained well

  5. 🇮🇳chahe Mandir Bane Ya masid Hum Sare Bhartiy ek he 🇮🇳
    🇮🇳Jay Hind 🇮🇳

  6. Modi saw election brownies by distributing money sex to temple nityanandas and forced molestation blackmailed Gogoi for quick verdict on basis of travelogues and addendum !

  7. The entire world belongs to God….God has no birth no death'..if you think someone unjustly take ur things just keep patience for the sake of God..

  8. The Supreme Court has committed a great blunder. I want to ask one simple question “What was the law applied by the Supreme court to decide the title suit?”. Obviously it

    could be only Law of Adverse possession, according to which continuous, peaceful, unbroken, uninterrupted possession for a specified period, say 12 years, confers title on the person who has so possessed the property. The essential requirement of possession under adverse possession is that the possession should not have been obtained by force or through unauthorized means. The Court accepts that the mosque was built by the Muslims

    in 1528. Between 1528 and the age of an old structure at that site there were

    400 years for which no evidence relevant to the case was available. There was

    no evidence to show that there had been any objection to the construction of

    the mosque at its site at the time of construction. The Supreme Court’s

    observation that there was no evidence of Muslims praying at the mosque from

    1528 to 1856 is ridiculous. Did Muslims build the mosque to use it as a show piece? No

    mosque was built for fun and obviously worship should have been conducted in

    the mosque continuously. According to the evidences relied on by the Supreme Court there had been forceful attempts by the Hindus to conduct worship from 1856 at that place and resisting the protests of Muslims, the Hindus were able to conduct worship at the same

    place where Muslims were also offering their prayers. The property was not in

    exclusive peaceful possession of Hindus for any significant continuous period

    of time so as to attract the law of adverse possession. It would be unethical

    for any mature democracy to illegally and unjustifiably wound the sentiments of

    the minorities, by offering them certain land as charity. Why should public

    money be wasted for a mischief done by certain barbarians?

  9. Congratulations to all Indians on winning the Ayodhya case. It is a victory because Indians had to battle for it over last two centuries. It is unfortunate that all Bharatiya had to fight for their own land. Muslim’s must be grateful, Indians in observing their true custom have allowed a mosque to be built in Ayodhya. If this case was to be decided by Muslims – IT IS A PROVEN FACT IN HISTORY – first, they would murder Hindus, and then would have stolen all our lands in Ayodhya. IT IS A PROVEN FACT! Wasn’t the mosque built there by murdering Hindus and destroying their temple?

    To all Hindus, congratulations. In fact it’s Indian victory. Even Muslims should be happy and if they are not, then it would be an indication that Muslims have always regarded themselves superior to Indian culture.

  10. killing 3500 people including rapes….. for a land then build a temple for GOD (ram) who doesn't exist …after that going inside the temple and ask for blessings from God ….then that God will bless you……for what you have did so far…..

  11. Hindu majoritarianism won. Most of the judges are Hindutva sympathizers. It’s all a drama to make India a Hindu rashtra

  12. The Real Decoding is simple – As usual the Supreme Court has Rewarded again the Criminals of Demolition of The Babri Mosque which are RSS, BJP and VHP are rewarded with the Site of overlooking the construction of the New Ram Mandir. Even before the Criminals who were involved in Gujarat Riots, who were involved in Muzaffarabad Riots and Mob Lyinching were also rewarded as heroes by same parties and were saved by the laws. Same thing has happened in this case. nothing New?

  13. I am curious to know that does 1991 worship act (1) violate principle of natural justice (art 14 etc) ,(2) can an act passed in 1991 be applied retrospectively to 1947. This is just academic question ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *