Overview of the Supreme Court Judgment

On November 9, 2019, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, delivered a unanimous 1,045-page verdict in the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, formally titled M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. The judgment resolved competing title claims over a 2.77-acre site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which Hindus regard as the birthplace of Lord Rama and where the Babri Masjid stood until its demolition in 1992. 15 5 10 The court overturned the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling that had divided the land into three parts, deeming it incorrect, and instead awarded the entire disputed site to the Hindu deity Ram Lalla Virajman (represented as a juristic person) for the construction of a Ram Temple. 7 11 To balance equities, the court directed the central or Uttar Pradesh government to allot 5 acres of alternative land in Ayodhya to the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board for building a new mosque, acknowledging the 1992 demolition and the 1949 placement of idols in the mosque as illegal acts of desecration. 9 8 5 The verdict dismissed 18 review petitions on December 12, 2019, and emphasized principles of evidence, title, and justice over pure faith, while recognizing the site’s religious significance to both communities. 13 5

The full text of the judgment is available as a public document from the Supreme Court of India’s official repository. 0 3

Basis of the Judgment

The court’s decision was grounded in a meticulous analysis of historical records, archaeological evidence, legal title claims, and principles of adverse possession and equity under Indian law. 15 8 It rejected the notion that the case could be decided solely on faith or belief, instead relying on verifiable evidence to establish possession and title. 8 The bench noted that while the Babri Masjid was built in 1528 by Mir Baqi under Mughal Emperor Babur, it was not constructed on vacant land, as archaeological findings indicated a pre-existing non-Islamic structure with temple-like features dating back to the 12th century. 7 12 5 However, the court found insufficient direct evidence to prove that the mosque was built by deliberately demolishing a Hindu temple, though it affirmed the site’s status as Ram Janmabhoomi based on undisputed Hindu faith and continuous worship. 15 13 The judgment applied the law of limitation, ruling that Hindu title suits from 1950 and 1959 were not time-barred, while dismissing Nirmohi Akhara’s claim as a shebait (custodian) of the deity due to limitation issues. 12 6 It also rejected the Shia Waqf Board’s claim against the Sunni Waqf Board. 5 Ultimately, the court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to provide a “complete justice” remedy, granting the site to Hindus while compensating Muslims to foster harmony. 15 11

Key Evidence Considered

• Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) Report (2003): The court heavily relied on the ASI excavation, which uncovered a massive underlying structure with features typical of North Indian Hindu temples, such as pillar bases, decorated bricks, sculptures, and motifs like lotus and amalaka. 15 7 12 While critics pointed to potential biases (e.g., ignoring animal bones or glazed ware suggesting Islamic influence), the court concluded the mosque was not built on empty land but did not attribute deliberate demolition to Babur. 15
• Historical Records and Travelogues: Evidence included 18th-century accounts by Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler describing Hindu worship at a “cradle” platform marking Rama’s birth, and reports from 1717 under Jai Singh II vesting the land in the deity. 15 Babur’s memoirs (Baburnama) omitted any mention of the mosque or temple demolition, and texts like Ain-i-Akbari and Ramcharitmanas lacked references to a mosque at the site. 15 Continuous Hindu worship outside the mosque (and Muslim use inside) until 1949 was established through British-era gazetteers and court records from 1822, 1855, and 1885. 15 8
• Legal and Possession Records: The court examined title suits, finding Hindus had uninterrupted possession via worship, supporting adverse possession claims against the Muslim side’s waqf argument (claiming possession since 1528). 15 8 Post-1949 state control under CrPC Section 145 and riots in 1855–1857 and 1934 were noted as disruptions. 15

Arguments from Both Sides

• Hindu Parties (Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, etc.): Asserted the site as Rama’s birthplace since ancient times, supported by scriptures like Ayodhya Mahatmya, ASI evidence of a prior temple, and continuous worship. 15 13 They claimed the 1949 idol placement was miraculous and sought full title, dismissing the mosque as invalid waqf. 15
• Muslim Parties (Sunni Waqf Board): Maintained the mosque was built on vacant land in 1528 as valid waqf, with no evidence of temple demolition, citing lacks in historical texts and critiquing ASI findings as inconclusive. 15 8 They highlighted invasions like the 1992 demolition and sought restoration or shared use. 15

The judgment has been described as balanced, nuanced, and aimed at ending a fractious dispute through evidence-based resolution. 4 14