#Ayodhya Verdict

#Ayodhya, is a disputed land forms part situated at village called Ramkot, in Pargana Havel Avadh, of Tehsil Sadar in the district of Ayodhya (formely known as Faizabad). The site has religious significance for the devotees of Lord Ram, who believe that Lord Ram was born at the disputed site.  For this reason, the Hindus refer to the disputed site as Ram Janmabhumi or Ram Janmasthan(i.e. birth-place of Lord Ram) for around 150 - 200 years. The Hindus assert that there existed at the disputed site an ancient temple dedicated to Lord Ram, which was demolished upon the conquest of the Indian sub-continent by Mughal Emperor Babur.

#Ayodhya Verdict, there are around serveral suits were instituted in the court by the Hindu and Muslim community in various demands as possession of land / there is Ram Janmasthan/ there was Babri Masjid / Right to enter into inner courtyard of land etc. The first suit was instituted in 1950 before the Civil Judge at District court of Faizabad by a Hindu worshipper, Gopal Singh Visharad seeking a declaration that according to his religion and custom, he is entitled to offer prayers at the main Janmabhumitemple near the idols. The dispute was going to pathetic day by day between the two communities.

The dispute in these appeals arises out of four regular suits which were instituted between 1950 and 1989. These suits, together with a separate suit by Hindu worshippers were transferred by the Allahabad High Court to itself for trial from the civil court at Faizabad. Before the Allahabad High Court, voluminous evidence, both oral and documentary was led, resulting in three judgements running the course of 4304 pages. The High Court rendered a judgment in original proceedings arising out of the four suits and these appeals arise out of the decision of a Full Bench dated 30^thSeptember 2010 to divide the disputed land in ratio 2:1 between communities.Both the communities were not align with thisjudgment.

On 9^thMay 2011, a two judge Bench of Supreme Court of India admitted several appeals and stayed the operation of the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of the appeals, parties were directed to maintain status quo with respect to the disputed premises in accordance with the directions issued in Ismail Faruqui. The Registry of this Court was directed to provide parties electronic copies of the digitised records.By an administrative order dated 8^thJanuary 2019 made pursuant to the provisions of Order VI Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the Chief Justice of India constituted a five judge Bench to hear the appeals. On 10^thJanuary 2019, the Registry was directed to inspect the records and if required, engage official translators. On 26^thFebruary 2019, this Court referred the parties to a Court appointed and monitored mediation to explore the possibility of bringing about a permanent solution to the issues raised in the appeals. Both the communities were not align with the mediation. Hence the Supreme Court of India has passed a judgement to conclude the long pending dispute and directed to Hindu to build a Mandir on the disputed land and further directed to Government to provide an alternate land to Muslim in Ayodhya to build a Masjid. 

#AYODHYA VERDICT BACKGROUND - The disputed site has been a flash point of continued conflagration over decades. In 1856-57, riots broke out between Hindus and Muslims in the vicinity of the structure. The colonial government attempted to raise a buffer between the two communities to maintain law and order by set ting up a grill-brick wall having a height of six or seven feet. This would divide the premises into two parts: the inner portion which would be used by the Muslim community and the outer portion or courtyard, which would be used by the Hindu community. The outer courtyard has several structures of religious significance for the Hindus, such as the SitaRasoi and a platform called the Ramchabutra. In 1877, another door was opened on the northern side of the outer courtyard by the colonial government, which was given to the Hindus to control and manage. The bifurcation, as the record shows, did not resolve the conflict and there were numerous attempts by one or other of the parties to exclude the other.

In January 1885, MahantRaghubar Das, claiming to be the Mahant of Ram Janmasthan instituted a suit1 (“Suit of 1885”) before the Sub-Judge, Faizabad. The relief which he sought was permission to build a temple on the Ramchabutra situated in the outer courtyard, measuring seventeen feet by twenty-one feet. A sketch map was filed with the plaint. On 24^thDecember 1885, the trial judge dismissed the suit, noting that there was a possibility of riots breaking out between the two communities due to the proposed construction of a temple. The trial judge, however, observed that there could be no question or doubt regarding the possession and ownership of the Hindus over the Chabutra. On 18^thMarch 1886, the District Judge dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court2 but struck off the observations relating to the ownership of Hindus of the Chabutra contained in the judgment of the Trial Court. On 1^stNovember 1886, the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (Avadh) dismissed the second appeal, noting that the Mahant had failed to present evidence of title to establish ownership of the Chabutra. In 1934, there was yet another conflagration between the two communities. The domed structure of the mosque was damaged during the incident and was subsequently repaired at the cost of the colonial government.

The controversy entered a new phase on the night intervening 22^ndand 23^rdDecember 1949, when the mosque was desecrated by a group of about fifty or sixty people who broke open its locks and placed idols of Lord Ram under the central dome. A First Information Report (“FIR”) was registered in relation to the incident. On 29 December 1949, the Additional City Magistrate, Faizabad-cum-Ayodhya issued a preliminary order under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (“CrPC 1898”), treating the situation to be of an emergent nature. Simultaneously, an attachment order was issued and PriyaDatt Ram, the Chairman of the Municipal Board of Faizabad was appointed as the receiver of the inner courtyard. On 5 January 1950, the receiver took charge of the inner courtyard and prepared an inventory of the attached properties. The Magistrate passed a preliminary order upon recording a satisfaction that the dispute between the two communities over their claims to worship and proprietorship over the structure would likely lead to a breach of peace. The stakeholders were allowed to file their written statements. Under the Magistrate‘s order, only two or three pujaris were permitted to go inside the place where the idols were kept, to perform religious ceremonies like bhog and puja. Members of the general public were restricted from entering and were only allowed darshan from beyond the grill-brick wall.

On 16^thJanuary 1950, a suit was instituted by a Hindu devotee, Gopal Singh Visharad, (“Suit 1”) before the Civil Judge at Faizabad, alleging that he was being prevented by officials of the government from entering the inner courtyard of the disputed site to offer worship. A declaration was sought to allow the plaintiff to offer prayers in accordance with the rites and tenets of his religion (“SanatanDharm”) at the ―main Janmabhumi, near the idols, within the inner courtyard, without hindrance. On the same date, an ad-interim injunction was issued in the suit. On 19^thJanuary 1950, the injunction was modified to prevent the idols from being removed from the disputed site and from causing interference in the performance of puja. On 3^rdMarch 1951, the Trial Court confirmed an interim order, as modified. On 26^th May 1955, the appeal against the interim order was dismissed by the High Court of Allahabad.

Domestic Violence Act, 2005

This act protect the women from domestic violence i.e. any kind occuring within the family. The Domestic Violence Act 2005 is an Act of the Parliament of India assented on 13 September 2005 and commenced on 26 October 2006.

The act provides for first time in Indian law a definition of domestic violence. This act provides order of maintenance which can not overlap the order of maintenance under section 125 of CrPc.

SC ST Act, 1989

This act is popularly known as The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The act has been enacted on 11 September 1989 to prevent atrocities against scheduled castes (SC) and scheduled tribes (ST). The act has been formed as per Article 17 of the Indian Constitution.

This act has been amended in 2015, punished casteist slurs and denied anticipatory bail to the accused. To making this act more stringent, the Scheduled Cahstes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Amendment Act, 2015, added that actions like tonsuring of head, moustache or similar acts which are derogatory to the dignity of members of SCs and STs, will now also be treated as atrocities.