It's back to square one, as SC stays Ayodhya verdict

The Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit, in which the Allahabad high court had handed down a verdict to split the land between Hindu and Muslim groups, has been stayed by the Supreme Court.

In its first hearing in the review petition filed by various parties on Monday, the Supreme Court noted that partition of the land had “opened a litany of litigation”. The court observed that it was a strange verdict, and ordered that no religious activity should be performed on the 67-acre area adjacent to the disputed site, too.

Though it is too early to predict how the court will ultimately decide the case, its initial observations suggest that it will overturn at least some part of the Allahabad verdict.

On 30 September 2010, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court gave a verdict which said that Hindus and Muslims were joint title-holders of the disputed land. The three-judge bench - comprising Justice SU Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice DV Sharma - ruled in favour of a division of the land in a majority 2:1 judgment, with one-third going to the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third to the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for Ram Lalla. The dissenting judge gave all the land to Hindus. Each of the three judges gave different verdicts – but the majority verdict pertained to a division of the land. In an order that ran into over 8,000 pages, the high court said that the portion below the central dome under which the idols of Lord Ram and other gods had been placed in a makeshift temple belonged to Hindus. All three judges agreed that the portion under the central dome should be allotted to Hindus.

The Nirmohi Akhara got the Ram Chabutara and the Sita Rasoi, which the Sunni Wakf Board got the remaining land.

The verdict satisfied no party completely, and hence the appeal in the Supreme Court.

[View the story “Reactions to the Ayodhya verdict” on Storify>