Ayodhya Judgment of Allahabad High Court

Please read live update on this important Judgment day. Allahabad High Court updated. The consolidated Judgment available below.

Justice SU Khan (pictured center), Justice Sudhir Agarwal (pictured right), Justice DV Sharma (pictured left).

9.26 PM: Times of India reports that Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the early litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, said it would challenge the Allahabad High Court order. “We have decided to challenge the decision to divide the Ramjanambhoomi land in three parts”, said state president of ABHM Kamlesh Tiwari. “Our fight for the Ramjanmbhoomi was acknowledged by the entire bench unanimously”, he said.  He said the legal battle was initiated by Mahasabha president of Faizabad Gopal Singh Visharad in Janauary 16, 1950.

8.45 PM: NDTV claims that the entire judgment of the High Court runs into 8,189 pages. NDTV runs a feature on all the judges and their personal profiles.

8.00 PM: Observations

That both parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 of Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession

Order: Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the Map Plan 1 (see below) to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping.

It is further declared that the portion below the central dome where at present the idol is kept in makeshift temple will be allotted to Hindus in final decree.

It is further directed that Nirmohi Akhara will be allotted share including that part which is shown by the words Ram Chabutra and Sita Rasoi in the said map.

It is further clarified that even though all three parties are declared to have one share each, however if while allotting exact portions some minor adjustment in the share is to be made then the same will be made and the adversely affected party may be compensated by allotting some portions of the adjoining land which has been acquired by the central government.

The Parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partion by metes and bounds within three months.

List immediately after filing of any suggestion / application for preparation of final decree after obtaining necessary instructions from the Hon’ble Chief Justice.

Status quo as prevailing till date pursuant to Supreme Court judgment of Ismail Farooqui (1994) 6 Sec 360) in all its minutest details shall be maintained for a period of three months unless this order is modified or vacated earlier.

7.00 PM: 60 years of fight in the map

6:50 PM: Judgment has been updated on the HC website (Click here). A consolidated 285 Page Judgment available here. A brief summary of the judgment of the three Judges are also available here.

6.45 PM: The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs has commented that they will appeal the Allahabad High Court judgment before the Supreme Court at the earliest available opportunity.

6.30 PM: Initial reading indicate that Justice DV Sharma has written the dissenting judgment while Justices Khan and Agarwal have written the majority judgment to divide the disputed property into three parts. Justice Sharma in his dissent has dismissed the suit filed by The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs on several grounds including that the suit is barred by limitation.

The gist of Justice Sudhir Agarwal’s summary:

1. Area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, is the birthplace of Lord Rama as per the Hindu faith and belief and thus belongs to the Hindus (Plaintiff Suit No. 5) and shall not be interfered with, in any manner
2. The area within the inner courtyard belongs to members of both the communities i.e. Muslims and Hindus as it has been in use by both since times immemorial
3. Whereas the three structures of Ram Chabutra, Sita Rasoi and Bhandar are placed in an area in the outer courtyard, that area is the share of Nirmohi Akhara (in absence of a better title to the suit)
4. The open area of the outer courtyard is to be shared between Nirmohi Akhara (Defendant No. 3) and the Hindus (Plaintiff Suit No. 5)
5. Also, share of Muslims to be not less than 1/3^rd of the total area of the premises and if necessary they may be given some area of the outer courtyard
6. Successful parties to the suit will acquire and utilise the land in such a manner so as to have separate entries and exits, without disturbing each other’s rights
7. All parties can file suggestions for the actual partition by submitting an application to Ayodhya Bench or the Lucknow Bench
8. For the next three months, parties to maintain status quo

The gist of Justice S.U. Khan summary:

1. No temple was demolished for the construction of a mosque
2. All 3 parties, i.e. Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders
3. The portion below the central dome where at present the makeshift temple is situated will be allotted to the Hindus
4. Mosque was constructed over the ruins of a temple, which was lying there for a very long time and some material was therefore used for the construction of the mosque
5. Inside the boundary wall and the compound of the mosque, Hindu religious places were identified and both Hindu and Muslim religious prayers were offered side by side
6. In view of the religious activities taking place alongside each other, both the Hindu and Muslim parties are joint possessors of the entire disputed site
7. That since both the parties have failed to prove the commencement of their titles to the disputed land, they are held joint possessors

6.15 PM: Tweets and Facebook updates – Did we need so many years, so many riots, so many innocent killings to divide the place into three portions!

5.30 PM: Senior Counsel Harish Salve, Mukhul Rohtagi and Krishnan Venugopal argue that we need to wait for the judgment before making any reactions. Media releases indicate that no temple was demolished for building a mosque.

5.20 PM: A brief summary of the judgment is available here. Justice SU Khan (pictured center), Justice Sudhir Agarwal (pictured right), Justice DV Sharma (pictured left) -Brief Summary, Issues for briefing

5:15 PM: High Court has updated the link with the summary of the issues and the judgment (Click Here).

5.10 PM: Senior Counsels react that the summary given to the media is very sketchy. Rajeev Dhawan claims that the High Court has over stepped its jurisdiction. PP Rao claims that the summary is very different from what Ravishankar Prasad claimed. Therefore lets wait for the Judgment.

4.55 PM: Senior Advocates PP Rao and Rajeev Dhawan claim that on the basis of what they know from media reports, the judgment looks like panchayat way of finding solution.

4.55 PM: All lawyers are coming out and strangely arguing before the media!

4.45 PM: Ravi Shankar Prasad speaking to the media and who is also a lawyer in the Ayodhya title dispute has come out and spoken to the media. He claims that 2 judges (Justices SU Khan and Sudhir Agarwal) have held that 1/3^rd land would belong to Ram Lala and the 1/3 rd belongs to the Sunni Board and 1/3 rd land would belong to Nirmohi Akhara. Still no clarity exists on the judgment.

4.35 PM: Lawyers representing various groups are arguing before the media, about whom they represent and what they argued before the Court! Most Senior lawyers are flaying the decision of lawyers to come before the media and place their arguments

3.30 PM: The 3 Judge Bench, which was supposed to deliver its verdict, is supposed to come out at 4 PM.