Struggle for Hindu Existence

*Hindu Rights to Survive with Dignity & Sovereignty *Join Hindu Freedom Movement to make Bharat Hindu Rashtra within 2025 *Jai Shri Ram *Jayatu Jayatu Hindu Rashtram *Editor: Upananda Brahmachari.

Ayodhya Verdict by SC: There will be a Temple on Ram Janmasthan.

The beauty of Indian Judiciary: Proving the all rights Hindu sides get 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya. Failing to prove their rights Muslims get 5 acres land there!

Ayodhya Verdict: Hindus get disputed site for Ram Mandir, Muslims get alternative land to build Mosque.

Upananda Brahmachari | HENB | Haridwar | Nov 9, 2019:: In a conclusion to an over 70 years old religious disputes between Hindus and Muslims on Ramjanmabhoomi Temple-Babri Mosque, Supreme Court finally orders that Central Govt within 3 months formulate scheme for setting up of trust and hand over the disputed site to it for construction of temple at the site and a suitable alternative plot of land measuring 5 acres at Ayodhya will be given to Sunni Wakf Board to make mosque there.

In its 1045 pages long judgment+ by the 5 judges bench+ headed by Chief Justice of India, His Lordship Mr Ranjan Gogoi and comprising by four other lordships viz. Justice Mr.  S A Bobde , Justice Mr. D Y Chandrachud, Justice Mr. S Abdul Nazeer, and Justice Mr. Ashok Bhushan, the Constitution Bench, that was set up on January 8, 2019, heard the case for over 40 days from August to October, before delivering the unanimous verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.

The Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010 being M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs …Appellants -Versus- Mahant Suresh Das & Ors …Respondents WITH Civil Appeal Nos 4768-4771/2011; Civil Appeal No 2636/2011; Civil Appeal No 821/2011; Civil Appeal No 4739/2011; Civil Appeal Nos 4905-4908/2011; Civil Appeal No 2215/2011, Civil Appeal No 4740/2011; Civil Appeal No 2894/2011; Civil Appeal No 6965/2011; Civil Appeal No 4192/2011; Civil Appeal No 5498/2011; Civil Appeal No 7226/2011 AND Civil Appeal No 8096/2011 pending the apex court for years finally came to an end for the decision featuring the main ten points noted below:

1. The SC has ordered the Union Govt of India to set up a trust to build a temple on the very claimed Ram Janmabhoomi Site, while allotting alternative five acres of land for constructing a mosque in a suitable place in Ayodhya.

2. The apex court has ordered the Centre to formulate a scheme in three months to set up a board of trustees for construction of a Ram temple at the disputed structure site discarding the Mosque claim on that site on the ground that the Muslim sides failed to prove their title of possession there anyway.

3. The SC has allotted the entire 2.77-acre disputed land to the Hindu sides for temple construction, refuting the one third sharing formula for all to Ramlalla Virajman (the Baby Lord Ram existing), the Nirmohi Akhada and the Sunni Wakf Board as settled by the Allahabad High Court earlier in 2010. The SC clearly ruled that the Allahabad high court judgement on the case in 2010 was wrong in dividing the disputed site into three parts.

4. The SC also ruled that the Nirmohi Akhada suit was not maintainable and it has no shebait rights (priestly rights). However, the court directed that in the Board of Trustees that will be set up, the Nirmohi Akhada should be given fair and appropriate representation.

5. The SC’s directive to set up a Trust to construct the Ram temple at the disputed site virtually ousts the VHP-backed Ram Janmsthan Nyas from temple construction activities.

6. The claim of Shia Waqf Board against Sunni Waqf Board to Babri Masjid was also dismissed+ by the apex court out-rightly mentioning the ‘inordinate delay of 24964 days’ to file the case by the Shia Borad in the case SLP (Civil) Diary No.22744/2017 Shia Central Board of Waqf U P…Petitioner -Versus- Sunni Central Board of Wakf …Respondent.

7. The SC said that archaeological evidence cannot be brushed aside as conjecture and hypothesis. SC held that Archaeological evidence supports that the Babri Masjid was not constructed on vacant land but on a definite non-Islamic structure. However, Archeological Survey of India findings did not say whether a particular Hindu temple was demolished to construct a mosque in 1528 by Mir Baqi, the lieutenant of Mughal ruler Babur.

8. The court also said that the destruction of the mosque in 1992 happened in breach of SC orders. The desecration of the mosque by placing idols in 1949 and its demolition was contrary to the law, it added.

9. Recognized the Muslim invasion over the Hindu worship place alternatively and otherwise and the very existence of a Islamic prayer house upon an earlier Hindu prayer place for centuries, the apex court even allowed an alternative Muslim prayer place with a direction to provide 5 acres of land for the handful Muslim inhabitants of Ayodhya to respect the Places of Worship Act, 1991.

10. The SC also seriously attempted to clear the could on the Hindu faith, belief and trust on Ayodhya Ramjanmabhoomi in its 115 pages long ADDENDA in its verdict under a caption “Whether disputed structure is the holy birth place of Lord Ram as per the faith, belief and trust of the Hindus?

The Supreme Court has said that Hindus have established “a clear case of a possessory title” to the outside courtyard by virtue of “long, continued and unimpeded worship” at the Ram Chabutra and other objects of religious significance.

(Inset L to R) Justice Mr. Ashok Bhushan Justice Mr.  S A Bobde , Chief Justice Mr Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Mr. D Y Chandrachud, and Justice Mr. S Abdul Nazeer.

It has said that according to the Hindu witnesses, the Hindus used to offer prayer to the Kasauti stone pillars placed inside the mosque. “Muslim witnesses have acknowledged the presence of symbols of Hindu religious significance both inside and outside the mosque,” the SC has said.

The unanimous 5-0 verdict of the apex court given by the  5 judges constitution bench on Ayodhya matter has been welcomed by maximum of all concerned so far.

The All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) and All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) already expressed their dissatisfaction over the SC’s final verdict on Ayodhya land suit.

But, there may be some storm suppressed in the mind of the die hard contenders divided into Hindus and Muslims.

Some devout Hindu activists think that the SC’s judgement on Ayodhya is ridiculous as the apex court ordered Union Government to grant 5 acre land for construction of mosque in order to pacify Muslim parties. But whereas Ayodhya case was purely on title suit and neither of Muslim parties demanded compensatory land or money SC allowed them free land to worship Islamically. Hindus fought for the Ram Janmabhoomi religious rights around 500 years and Ram Janmabhoomi legal rights for the last 135 years but they got 2.77 acres only, that too with all relevant deeds, documents and concrete evidences of rights. Muslims sides failed to prove their possession of rights of the land on which Babri Mosque once forcefully erected and existed (though finally razed to ground by the Hindus on Dec 6, 1992), but Muslims got a land of 5 acres as a token of minority appeasement by the Indian Judiciary.  Really, it’s the beauty of secular Indian Judiciary that ‘Proving the all rights Hindu sides get 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya. Failing to prove their rights Muslims get 5 acre land there free!’

This reminds another case Muslim appeasement of Indian judiciary, while in 2012, the apex court pronounced the Haj Subsidy given by Govt as illegal, unconstitutional  and arbitrary, but the highest seat of Indian judiciary then allowed a time frame of ten years to end that illegality of Haj subsidy by 2022.

By the way, the Union Govt is likely to form a 10 men high committee to make Ayodhya Trust within three months as directed by the apex court for making the grand Ram Temple on Ramjanmabhoomi within a reasonable time frame. As per source, Swami Avdeshananda Giri of Juna Akhada, Art of Living founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Yoga Guru Swami Ramdev, Isha Foundation’s Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev, Representative of Nirmohi Akhada, Swami Chidananda Muni of Parmarth Niketan, RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat, VHP Working President Alok Kumar, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and UP CM Yogi Adityanath may be included in the said 10 men high committee to make Ayodhya Trust.

__With inputs from IE-TOI-SCI Web Sites.



One comment on “Ayodhya Verdict by SC: There will be a Temple on Ram Janmasthan.

  1. T. Naidoo
    November 11, 2019

    We need to study this judgement very carefully. Islam is a foreign ideology which does not accord Sri Ram’s devotees their right to build a place of worship at His birthplace. If Islam is a religion why did it make it so difficult for Sri Ram’s followers to arrive at this latest decision? Could Muslims not respect the wishes of Sri Ram’s devotees? It proved by its actions that it is determined to take over and spread its ideology in India. Does it have a religious right to do so? If the devotees of Ram have their own religious teachings why does Islam interfere with this?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Follow Struggle for Hindu Existence on

Blog Stats

  • 7,945,201 hits

Follow Struggle for Hindu Existence on

November 2019
%d bloggers like this: