Supreme Court Ayodhya Verdict: CJI Ranjan Gogai said that the disputed land should be given to Ram Lala Virajman. At the same time, it also decided to give five acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board.
While giving the biggest decision in the Ayodhya case, the Supreme Court said that the disputed land should be given to Ramlala Virajman. CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that a trust should be created for the construction of the temple and the central government should plan it in three months. At the same time, it has also been decided to give five acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board. The CJI said that these five acres of land should be given either from the acquired land or somewhere in Ayodhya. At the same time, the government will have the right over 2.77 acres of disputed land.
Earlier, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that history is necessary but law is at the top. The CJI said that Mir Baqi had built the Babri Masjid but in 1949 the idol of Ram was kept at midnight. There is no scientific evidence of when the mosque was built. The CJI said that archeology, religion and history are necessary for all of us but law is at the top. It is our duty to see all religions equally. The attitude of the government should be the same for every citizen of the country.
Ram Janmabhoomi is not a judicial person: CJI
While delivering the judgment, the CJI said that Ram Janma Bhoomi is not a judicial person. While rejecting the Nirmohi Akhara in the Ayodhya case, the court is legally recognized as sitting in Ramlala. The Sunni Waqf Board claim is worth considering. With this, he said that ASI's report cannot be dismissed. The structure found in the excavation was un-Islamic. However, the ASI did not say that the mosque was built by demolishing the temple. The ASI report gives evidence of having a temple within the ground.
No decision to own land in the name of faith
The CJI said that the arguments of both the parties do not give any result. While giving the verdict, the CJI said that the ownership of the land on faith cannot be decided. Hindus consider the main dome as the birthplace of Rama, while Muslims used to offer namaz at that place. Where the Hindu side claims to be Sita's kitchen, the Muslim side calls that place a mosque and cemetery. CJI said, there was always worship in the interior. Worship was also done in the outer platform, Ram platform and Sita kitchen.
The Hindu side proved the claim on the outside, disputed inside
The CJI said that ancient travelers have mentioned the birthplace. Till 1949, Muslims used to offer Namaz in the mosque, after which it was locked. Muslims never left mosques. The CJI said that there is no discrimination in the faith in the eyes of the Constitution. The CJI said, the court gives the verdict on evidence, not faith. The Hindu side proved the claim on the outside, disputed inside. He said that the constitution is the basic spirit of faith. He said that before 1856 Muslims had no claim on the main dome.
Ayodhya Verdict: Know who are the 5 judges who gave historic verdict in the country's largest lawsuit
Ayodhya Verdict: The constitutional bench of five judges heard the Ayodhya case. It is headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. This bench consists of Justice SA Bobde Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S Abdul Nazir and DY Chandrachud.
The Supreme Court of India on Saturday gave an important verdict on the Ram Janambhoomi and Babri Mosque land dispute (Ayodhya Land Dispute) in the country's decades-old Ayodhya. The hearing of the case related to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in the Supreme Court began on August 5 this year. After the last August 5, there is a regular hearing in the Supreme Court on the Ayodhya case. After this hearing which lasted for 40 days, the Constitution Bench reserved its decision on 17 October.
The constitutional bench of five judges heard the matter. It is headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Apart from Gogoi, the bench also comprises Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer and Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud.
Debate over Ayodhya land dispute case is over
Even before the hearing began, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had said that the issue is politically sensitive. Therefore, the bench of three judges will not hear. Only then a constitutional bench of five judges was created. Let's know who are the five judges whose bench has completed the hearing of this case.
Ranjan Gogoi (Justice Ranjan Gogoi): The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Ranjan Gogoi is included in this bench. Ranjan Gogoi is one of the four judges who made headlines by holding a press conference against former CJI Deepak Mishra. He is the 46th Chief Justice of the country. Born on 18 November 1954, Justice Ranjan Gogoi completed his schooling from Don Vasco School in Dibrugarh and studied history from St. Stephen's College, University of Delhi. Justice Gogoi, who started advocating from the Guwahati High Court in 1978, became the judge of the Guwahati High Court in the year 2001. He was then appointed as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 12 February 2011. He was made a judge of the Supreme Court in the year 2012 and after that he was involved in many important decisions ranging from election reform to reservation reform.
The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Ranjan Gogoi is included in this bench.
Justice Ranjan Gogoi was included in the bench which excluded Jats from the ambit of Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the Central Services. Justice Ranjan Gogoi gave the decision to create a National Citizenship Register (NRC) to identify intruders in Assam. Former Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju was summoned in the court by Justice Ranjan Gogoi for writing a blog in the Soumya murder case. Justice Ranjan Gogoi flatly refused to constitute SIT in the case of JNU student leader Kanhaiya Kumar.
Justice DY Chandrachud: On 13 May 2016, Justice DY Chandrachud was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court. Prior to this, he was the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court till 2013 and also judge of Bombay High Court. In addition, Chandrachud has also been the director of Maharashtra Judicial Academy. Justice Chandrachud has also been a part of the nine-member bench of the Supreme Court which declared the right to privacy as a fundamental right. His father YV Chandrachud was the longest-lived CJI in the country. Justice Chandrachud has also served as Additional Solicitor General of India.
Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde: Born in Nagpur on April 24, 1956, Bobde is a judge of the Supreme Court and is also the Chancellor of Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai and Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur. Earlier he was also the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court. His term is going to end on 23 April 2021. Bobde has an eight-year term in the Supreme Court. Bobde is also the next Chief Justice of India i.e. Chief Justice of India.
Justice Ashok Bhushan: Justice Bhushan was born on 5 July 1956 in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh. Ashok Bhushan has graduated from Allahabad University. In 1979, he also got LLB degree from Allahabad University. On 9 April 1979, he was registered with the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. Bhushan started his practice in the Allahabad High Court. There he continued to practice till the year 2001. On 24 April 2001, he was appointed as Judge of Allahabad High Court. He was transferred to the Kerala High Court on 10 July 2014. On 1 August 2014, he became the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court. On 13 May 2016, Ashok Bhushan was appointed a judge in the Supreme Court.
Justice S. Abdul Nazeer: Justice Nazir was born on 5 January 1958 in a Muslim family in Kanara, Karnataka. It is a coastal region of Karnataka. Justice Nazir has five siblings. He completed his B.Com degree at Mahavir College, Muvvedidri. Justice Nazir has a law degree from SDM Law College Kodiyalabail, Mangaluru. Nazir started his career as a lawyer at the Karnataka High Court in Bengaluru on 18 February 1983. Justice Nazir was appointed as Additional Judge in the Karnataka High Court in May 2003.
Ayodhya Land Dispute Verdict: Highlights of Supreme Court's decision on Ayodhya
A five-judge bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi on Saturday unanimously ruled in the Ayodhya land dispute case.
In the Ayodhya (Ram janmbhoomi) and Babri Masjid land dispute case (Ayodhya Land Dispute case), the Supreme Court today delivered a major verdict. A five-judge bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi unanimously read the verdict. CJI Ranjan Gogoi read this decision.
Learn all the special things related to this decision here ...
- ASI report found evidence of temple below ground: Supreme Court
- Disputed land given to Ramlala Virajman - CJI
- Ramlala be made a trust for the land - CJI
- Trust should be made for temple construction - CJI
- CJI Ranjan Gogoi said that the central government should make a plan in 3 months.
- The CJI said that the trust should prepare the plan of the temple in 3 months.
- 2.77 acres of disputed land will be the right of the government- Supreme Court
- In the eyes of the constitution all the assets are equal- CJI
Court notices on evidence - CJI
- The interior is disputed. Hindu side proves claim on outer part - CJI
Five acres of land should be given to the Sunni Waqf Board. This land should be either acquired land or anywhere in Ayodhya - CJI
- Ancient travelers mention Janmabhoomi - CJI
Till 1949, Muslims used to offer prayers in the mosque - CJI Ranjan Gogoi
- Equality is the basic spirit of the constitution - CJI
- CJI said that the claim of Sunni Waqf Board is considered.
- Hindu side gave many historical evidence- CJI
- CJI Ranjan Gogoi read the judgment and said that it is the government's job to see all religions equally. Courts are a secular institution above belief. The statue was kept at midnight in 1949.
- CJI said that history is important but law is at the top of all of them, all the judges have decided with consensus.
- The CJI said that there is no decision to own the land over the asset.
- The CJI said that the Muslim side claimed that the statue was kept at midnight.
- CJI said that Ram Janmabhoomi is not a judicial person.
- Supreme Court gave legal recognition to Ramlala Virajman. But Ram Janmabhoomi is not considered a judicial person.
- CJI Ranjan Gogoi read the judgment and said that the structure found in the excavation was un-Islamic.
- The CJI said that the claims of Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board are rejected.