Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Socio Legal Corp

SLC Reads


Written by – Anshal

The verdict given by the Indian Supreme Court on the long standing issue of the holy land in Ayodhya came as a relief to many people in the country. Many feared the worst for the safety and order of the country before the judgment was to be given because of the stakes at hand.

The land in this case was the land where Babri Masjid was built over a temple during the 16th century. The land has been a topic of dispute for Hindus and Muslims for over 200 years. In 1992 the Masjid was demolished during a political rally. The Allahabad High Court gave its verdict in 2010 where it divided the land into three parts, Nirmohi Akhara, Ram lalla, and the Waqf board. The major point of the judgment was that the High Court confirmed that the land in dispute was indeed the birthplace of Lord Rama.

The Supreme Court gave a very important judgment when all the three parties involved appealed the High Court’s decision to it. The Supreme Court told the Government of India to build a temple at the land and confirmed that it was the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Court also gave 5 acres of land to the Waqf board to build a mosque to replace the Babri Masjid which was demolished. Along with evidence from Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and various historical texts, importance was also given to the biographies of Shri Guru Nanak Dev where it was written that the first Sikh Guru went to Ayodhya to pay his respects and prayers in the Ram Temple.

One important aspect of the judgment was that the Waqf board, representing the Muslims in this case accepted the verdict of the Supreme Court and did not file a review petition. Many Muslim authorities across the country shared the same view and respected the decision of Supreme Court. Although some petitions did lie before the Supreme Court related to this matter, most of them were disposed off by the Court.

The decision although did not result in my uproar amongst the public, there were some places which experienced some sort of violence. Many restrictions were placed in the country with the state of Uttar Pradesh exercising special precaution because of the graveness of the situation. The decision coincided with the opening of Kartarpur border in Pakistan and it was not welcomed by ministers in Pakistan. Another issue that arose from the judgment was the reference of Sikhism as a cult rather than a religion and mention of practices which are banned in Sikhism, which was very well objected to by the Sikh boards. A petition was also filed to correct or remove the wrong facts from the judgment.

The land, the temple, and the destroyed mosque are a big part of Indian history and the dispute itself makes part of Indian history.  It is not the first time that unrest has been caused in India due to religious problems, and it probably isn’t the last. Although the parties claim to be happy from the decision given by the Supreme Court, there many parties not privy to the present case, who expressed their concern and filed review petitions in the Supreme Court.

The judgment and the issue as a whole brought up all the problems faced by India again, especially in the religious context. How India’s peace is threatened when something slightly related to religion happens in the country is one big issue faced by the public of the country and not just the country. Political interests also make a big difference in what happens with such problems. Religion is one thing that separates India from the successful countries in the West. The Indian Supreme Court managed to come up with a decision that satisfied both the parties but history has shown us that this is not always the case and in the future too, the Supreme Court may not be able to satisfy everyone.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Related Posts

SLC Reads

We have curated some of the best legal internship opportunities available for law students across the country and worldwide. Please check them below: Internship...

Inside Court News

Issue: The bench comprising Justices Krishna Murari and V Subrahmanium was hearing the appeals which were made against a Madras HC’S order that directed...

Inside Court News

Issue: – The supreme court was hearing a plea challenging the order by Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyaya of the Calcutta HC in which he had...

Inside Court News

Issue: – The court was hearing Kunal Kamra’s plea, challenging rule 3(i)(II)(C) of the amended IT Rules, 2023, where the task of identifying fake...

How To Write #CaseSummary Of A #Judgement?