Supreme Court observes that within the premises, there existed two religious faiths.
The apex court stated that it was tasked with the resolution of “a dispute whose origins are as old as the idea of India itself”.
“The events associated with the dispute have spanned the Mughal empire, colonial rule and the present constitutional regime,” the five-judge SC bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi said.
The top court observed that within the premises of the same complex, there existed two religious faiths. “Their coexistence was at times, especially before 1856, accepting and at others, antagonistic and a cause of bloodshed. Yet, the distinctive features of the site, embodying both Hindu and Islamic traditions, led to the creation of a space with an identity of its own,” the five-judge bench said. “The disputed site has witnessed a medley of faiths and the co-existence of Hindu and Muslim practices, beliefs and customs,” the court said, explaining the religious and architectural tradition of the demolished mosque. A blend of Hindu and Muslim elements emerges from the religious and architectural tradition associated with the erstwhile structure which embodied the features of both a temple and a mosque. “They were symbols of a syncretic culture. Specific sculptured finds such as the black Kasauti stone pillars along with the presence of the figurines of Varah, Garud, Jai and Vijay suggest that they were primarily meant for decoration of a Hindu temple facade and served as deities to be worshipped,” the top court said. At the same time, the distinctive appearance of a mosque emerged from the three domes, the Vazoo, the stone inscription with Allaha, the mimbar and the mehrab. These features indicate that the disputed premise was constructed as a mosque, the court observed.
Voices of faith and dissatisfaction
Lawyers for Hindu parties on Saturday said the Supreme Court judgment granting the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land in Ayodhya to deity Ram Lalla has reaffirmed their faith while the Muslim advocates voiced dissatisfaction saying there were lot of contradictions in the verdict.
Senior advocate P S Narasimha, who had appeared for deity Ram Lalla Virajman in the title dispute, said that they are grateful to the court for respecting their religion and faith while Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board’s Zafaryab Jilani expressed his dissatisfaction over the verdict.
SC view akin to Liberhan finding on demolition
The Supreme Court, which kept itself away during the Ayodhya land dispute case hearings from going into the issue of demolition of the disputed structure on December 6, 1992, made a passing remark in its judgment on Saturday about the event saying it was brought down in a “calculated act.”
Though there are few lines in the judgement on the demolition, the observation was reminiscent of the commission of inquiry set up by the then P V Narasimha Rao government within 10 days of the demolition, which also had gave the finding that entire demolition was carried out in an “orchestrated” manner.
The then Congress government had set up a one-man inquiry commission headed by Justice M S Liberhan, who was then the sitting judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. However, Justice Liberhan gave full time to the commission only after his retirement as judge and submitted the report after 17 years in 2009 during which its term was extended 48 times.
The Commission concluded that the factual matrix of the case yields “indisputable evidence that lured by the prospect of power or wealth, a rank of leaders emerged within the BJP, RSS, VHP, Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal etc. who were neither guided by any ideology nor imbued with any dogma nor restrained by any moral trepidation”.