19:25 Khan's judgment preamble reads: "Here is a small piece of land (1500 square yards) where angels fear to tread. It is full of innumerable land mines. We are required to clear it. Some very sane elements advised us not to attempt that. We do not propose to rush in like fools lest we are blown. However we have to take risk. It is said that the greatest risk in life is not daring to take risk when occasion for the same arises. Once angels were made to bow before Man. Sometimes he has to justify the said honour. This is one of those occasions. We have succeeded or failed? No one can be a judge in his own cause. Accordingly, herein follows the judgment for which the entire country is waiting with bated breath."
19:19 Full judgments now uploaded at http://www.rjbm.nic.in/ - the consolidated judgment of Justice Khan is a reasonably quick 3.2MB download of 285 pages.
Justice Agarwal's consolidated judgment weighs in at 21 parts. [correction: we had erroneously stated that Agarwal's consolidated judgment was 250 pages long - this is not correct. Thanks to readers for pointing out. -Ed]
19:04 Sorabjee asks why notwithstanding a Supreme Court appeal, an attempt should not be made to reconcile between the three parties, as suggested by the majority verdict in Allahabad?
18:53 Former attorney general Soli Sorabjee says in an IBN Live interview that "the two [majority] judgments are agreed in so far as ultimate conclusions are concerned" although he would have been happier if all three judgments were unanimous. Currently it was unclear what the dissenting judgment was based on, said Sorabjee. He said that at least it was a "judicial resolution of this long festering dispute".
"But I don't think either side will be completely satisfied," he added, although neither party will not be completely satisfied, "they should not get feeling [...] we have lost very badly".
Sorabjee said: "We should accept it in the proper spirit - subject of course to taking it to Supreme Court."
18:09: Law minister Veerappa Moily currently declines to comment in interviews, saying he wants to study the judgment first, report both television interviews and some online articles.
Do any lawyers have comment/analysis to share?
18:04: Justice Agarwal says in his "gist of judgment" "(vii) For a period of three months or unless directed otherwise, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo as on today in respect of property in dispute."
Justice Khan too said that "the parties are at liberty to file their suggestions for actual partition by metes and bounds within three months".
17:56 Justice Sharma says in his "issues for briefing", which is a good swift read, that the site was the birth place of Lord Ram, who is a juristic person and a deity. "It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present every where at all times for any one to invoke at any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also."
He also says that the Babri was not a mosque because "it was built against the tenets of Islam".
In paragraph 5 he says that the fourth case by the Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, and the third case of Nirmohi Akhara were both barred by time.
Right now it seems to me that Sharma is the dissenting judge as he does not mention a division into three parts in the summary that runs through the 50+ issues in his 24-page "brief summary". Is very dense reading - any ideas?
17:45 Justice Agarwal says in the exerpt of his judgment that the land shall be split into 3 parts, noting particularly: "(iv-a) It is however made clear that the share of muslim parties shall not be less than one third (1/3) of the total area of the premises and if necessary it may be given some area of outer courtyard. It is also made clear that while making partition by metes and bounds, if some minor adjustments are to be made with respect to the share of different parties, the affected party may be compensated by allotting the requisite land from the area which is under acquisition of the Government of India."
"(i) It is declared that the area covered by the central dome of the three domed structure, i.e., the disputed structure being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Suit-5) [Hindus] and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants.."
"(ii) The area within the inner courtyard [...] belong to members of both the communities, i.e., Hindus (here plaintiffs, Suit-5) and Muslims since it was being used by both since decades and centuries. It is, however, made clear that for the purpose of share ofplaintiffs, Suit-5 under this direction the area which is covered by (i) above shall also be included."
"(iii) The area covered by the structures, namely, Ram Chabutra, [...] Sita Rasoi [...] and Bhandar [...] in the outer courtyard is declared in the share of Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and they shall be entitled to possession thereof in the absence of any person with better title. (iv) The open area within the outer courtyard [...] (except that covered by (iii) above) shall be shared by Nirmohi Akhara (defendant no. 3) and plaintiffs (Suit-5) since it has been generally used by the Hindu people for worship at both places."
[Ps: Our site crashed earlier under the traffic - we have temporarily reduced the images and other elements on the site to make it load faster...]
17:30 Justice Khan says in his judgment summary: 1. The site was a mosque that was constructed over ruins of temples for a long time but both Muslims and Hindus worshipped there. He also holds that: “10. That both the parties have failed to prove commencement of their title hence by virtue of Section 110 Evidence Act both are held to be joint title holders on the basis of joint possession.”
“Accordingly, all the three sets of parties, i.e. Muslims, Hindus and Nirmohi Akhara are declared joint title holders of the property/ premises in dispute as described by letters A B C D E F in the map Plan-I prepared by Sri Shiv Shanker Lal, Pleader/ Commissioner appointed by Court in Suit No.1 to the extent of one third share each for using and managing the same for worshipping. A preliminary decree to this effect is passed.”
17:10 Summaries and 'gists' of judgments published on official site http://www.rjbm.nic.in/
Hon'ble Dharam Veer Sharma, J.
17:04 The place immediately below dome will go to Hindus - Nirmohi Akhara, and the other portion will go to Sunni Wakf central board, says Bhatt, who is Ram Lalla's lawyer. The third portion would go to Ram Lalla himself - not sure how that will work. For 3 months status quo should not be disturbed...
16:58 The 1961 suit by Sunni Wakf board rejected because it was 6 years too late, says KN Bhatt - the Lawyer of Ram Lalla. He tells IBN Live that the place immediately below the dome where the idol was the birthplace of Lord Rama.
Meanwhile, in another video feed piped into the background on IBN, footage of intimidating marching soliders and riot police in full regalia.
Still not clear exactly how land will be divided into three. Bhatt says that court apparently decided that the Babri site was a mosque.
16:54 The land would be divided into 3 parts, says IBN Live, after a number of lawyers have spoken.
16:52 The Mumbai streets were fairly empty an hour ago – any update on what’s going on outside? Everyone glued to TV or business as usual. To break the tension, just in on Twitter: “RT @mojorojo: BREAKING NEWS: Ayodhya now only computer in the world that has 1/3 GB Ram.”
16:45 @Livemint just tweeted: “Even though Ayodhya is the birth place of Ram, only 1/3rd of land should be allocated to Hindus, and 1/3 for Mosque” – Not sure whether true or where came from.
16:43 Lawyer and BJP leader Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the basic title suit Sunni has been rejected, according to IBN TV. Apparently two-to-one the judges decided that the Babri Masjid location was the place of Ram Lalla’s birth. Again, judgment not uploaded yet nor proper information available.
16:36 Apparently the lawyers for the Hindu side have breached the embargo on public statements and have quoted selectively from the case, says IBN Live. Website still down…
16:29 Journo on IBN Live overhears some lawyers saying that both suits were barred by time due to the statute of limitations… Status quo would prevail. Sounds pretty hazy for now, let’s wait for the judgment…
16:22 There is a special website set up and it’s still running! http://www.rjbm.nic.in/ -- right now it says in big black letters: “Judgement shall be made available soon”
16:15 New and old media overdrive: More than 100 tweets on Ayodhya every minute. All TV channels on full Ayodhyah rotation. Hundreds of hacks are assembled outside court, says Times of India. A gentleman on IBN Live TV reassures antsy presenter than the judgment will be in English and not in Hindi. They speculate whether the HC website can take the hits (no, it can’t – still offline…).
16:02 The Allahabad High Court website is inaccessible, according to posts on Twitter and Legally India experience. Verdict will be available on Allahabad HC website at 4pm, says news ticker on www.indiatvnews.com. Unsurprisingly a lot of people seem interested in the judgment, apart from just journos.
15:55 The judgment by the court in the Ayodyha title dispute is expected at 4pm today. According to media reports, each of the three judges will give separate judgments in the case.
The Lucknow bench of the High Court bench consists of Justice DV Sharma, who will retire on Friday, and SU Khan and Sudhir Agarwal.
This post will be updated throughout the day.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
But at least no one can riot about it.
But.. sometimes, the way to ensure justice is not always through sound legal application.
Lets face it, the parties to this dispute haven't succeeded in reaching an amicable settlement for decades! A legally sound judgment might have appeased legal pundits, but it would most certainly have had one clear winner, and one clear loser, along with its set of consequences.
By directing that the land be divided amongst 3 parties, i think the court has provided the ground work for a peaceful settlement of the dispute. Not a life was lost today, and not too many grumbling voices were heard apart from those well versed with the law. At the end of the day, the happiness and well-being of the community should be allowed to outweigh legal correctness, at least in matters as sensitive as this.
The question whether Lord Ram was actually born at the disputed site was not what the court was asked to answer - only whether a Ram temple stood there before.
The dispute has festered on for more than a century, and I think it's time for a sensible closure - along the lines suggested by the court.
Either we have closure - or relook into the hundreds of mosques which were allegedly built by demolishing temples. Where will that lead us? Sometimes, justice must not only be done, but seen to be done.
Secondly - Comments by # 3 and # 7 are going to do nothing but encourage responses similar in tone to the comments posted by them.
@#7
You are incorrect.
The Court held that the main area of the mosque (central dome) was the birthplace of Lord Rama. That was the reasoning behing giving the area under the central dome to the Hindus.
It is a 1200 page judgment and I have not gone through it myself but please do not wax eloquent by making incorrect definitive statements. I dare say that an issue that has defined as well as changed the course of India politics, society and civil institutions and that has been dealt with in 1200 pages cannot be summed up in one pithy sentence.
@#4
Both Justice Agarwal and Justice Sharma held that a temple was demolished to construct a mosque. Are you seriously going to argue about ASI's views on the subject as taking precedence over that of a High Court? What are you smokin mate? Pass me some of that ish.
It's interesting how before the verdict was rendered there was this talk about adhering to the rule of law, accepting the verdict of the Court without bitterness.
And now certain media outlets and people (as evidenced by the comments above) are tempted to question the wisdom behind the judgment without going through the fine print and even going as far to proffer inaccurate facts as 'truths'.
# 4 should know that ASI had also said that there was a religious structure at the site before the masjid was constructed. Howcome there was no mention of that?
Bottom Line - Neither side won. But India did in so many ways that #6 has pointed out.
Kian should have stuck to live blogging the judgment and providing links to the judgment. No need for comments on this particular post.
It will be a pleasant change to see political leaders and the media alike moving on. In cases such as this, although the court has done a fine job of facilitating a peaceful settlement, flare-ups are usually caused when people in the spotlight express their opinions on tv and in the newspapers. X said this, Y said that - and before you know it, we're back to square one.
Warm regards,
Kian
Have comments in any newspaper led to rioting? Or for that matter comments on any website? Riots are always instigated. By people who are keen to make a name for themselves.
And who are you to judge what can lead to a riot and what cannot?
And since when are readers of this site in a category that is 'so niche'? Are Moily, Bhasin and many of their ilk representative of the legal profession?
Best regards,
Kian
It is for you to look beyong the narrow prism of LI readers and look at the larger picture in the interest of society.
And you did not do that no matter how many times you would have us believe otherwise.
Best regards,
Kian
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first