- CJI Ranjan GogoiFavored (Unanimous)
- Justice S.A. BobdeFavored (Unanimous)
- Justice D.Y. ChandrachudFavored (Unanimous)
- Justice Ashok BhushanFavored (Unanimous)
- Justice S. Abdul NazeerFavored (Unanimous)
- Constitution of India (Article 142 - Power to do complete justice)
- Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991
- Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Allahabad High Court Judgment, Ayodhya Case (2010) (Overruled)
- M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India (1994) (Upheld Ayodhya Act)
This case, popularly known as the Ayodhya Title Dispute, was one of the most complex and longest-running legal battles in India's history. It centered on the ownership of 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya, claimed by Hindu parties as the birthplace of Lord Ram (Ram Janmabhoomi) and by Muslim parties as the site of the Babri Masjid (built in 1528, demolished in 1992).
The Supreme Court was hearing appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which had divided the disputed land in a 2:1 ratio among three parties: Ram Lalla Virajman (the deity), the Nirmohi Akhara, and the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The Supreme Court bench heard the arguments in a marathon 40-day hearing.
ARGUMENTS
Hindu Parties' Case (Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara, etc.)
- The entire disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram, a deity and a juristic person with legal rights.
- Historical texts, archaeological evidence (ASI report), and continuous worship by Hindus for centuries prove their possessory claim.
- The Babri Masjid was built by Babur's general Mir Baqi after demolishing a pre-existing Hindu temple.
- Nirmohi Akhara claimed rights as the shebait (manager) of the temple.
- The 2010 High Court verdict of dividing the land was wrong, as the entire land is a single indivisible unit of deity.
Muslim Parties' Case (Sunni Waqf Board, M. Siddiq)
- The Babri Masjid was built in 1528 on vacant land, not by demolishing a temple.
- Muslims were in exclusive possession and offered prayers at the mosque from 1528 until 1949, when idols were illegally placed inside.
- The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report was inconclusive and based on conjecture.
- Hindu worship was largely confined to the outer courtyard; their claim to the inner courtyard and mosque structure is recent.
- The demolition of the mosque in 1992 was an illegal act that must be remedied by the court.
Case Progression Timeline
Babri Masjid Built
Mosque constructed, allegedly by Babur's general Mir Baqi.
1528First Legal Suits Filed
Suits filed by Hindu parties (Nirmohi Akhara) and Muslim parties (Sunni Waqf Board) regarding possession and rights.
1885 / 1950s-1960sIdols Placed Inside Mosque
Idols of Lord Ram are placed inside the central dome of the mosque, leading to it being locked and declared disputed property.
December 1949Babri Masjid Demolition
The mosque structure is demolished by a large crowd of Karsevaks.
December 6, 1992Allahabad High Court Judgment
A 3-judge bench divides the 2.77-acre disputed site in a 2:1 ratio among Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara, and Sunni Waqf Board.
September 30, 2010Appeals in Supreme Court
All parties appeal the High Court's decision. The Supreme Court stays the judgment.
May 2011Marathon Hearing
A 5-judge bench conducts a 40-day marathon hearing after mediation efforts fail.
August 6 - October 16, 2019Supreme Court Judgment
The 5-judge bench delivers a unanimous verdict, settling the title dispute.
November 9, 2019The Supreme Court, in a unanimous 1045-page judgment, overruled the Allahabad High Court's 2010 decision to split the land. The Court held that the title to the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land belonged to the deity Ram Lalla Virajman (represented by his "next friend").
The Court directed the Central Government to formulate a scheme and create a Trust within three months to build a Ram Temple on the site. Simultaneously, the Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 (to do "complete justice") and acknowledged the "egregious wrong" of the 1992 mosque demolition. To remedy this, it directed the government to allot a separate, prominent 5-acre plot of land to the Sunni Central Waqf Board elsewhere in Ayodhya for the construction of a new mosque.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The Court's unanimous judgment (authored by the bench, with an anonymous addendum) was primarily a title suit decision based on "preponderance of probabilities." It held that the evidence from Hindu parties (travelogues, archaeological findings from ASI, continuous worship in the outer courtyard) showed a more consistent and possessory claim over the site than the Muslim parties, whose evidence of exclusive possession from 1528 to 1857 was weak. The Court noted the ASI report indicated a "non-Islamic" structure existed beneath the mosque, though it did not conclude it was a demolished temple. It dismissed the suit by Nirmohi Akhara as time-barred and barred by limitation. The decision to grant the land to the Hindu deity while simultaneously providing land for a mosque under Article 142 was a significant act of judicial balancing, aimed at providing closure to a long-standing national dispute while acknowledging the wrongs committed against the Muslim community.
FINAL VERDICT
- The 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment dividing the land was overruled as unworkable.
- The title to the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land was awarded to the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman.
- The Central Government was directed to form a Trust within 3 months to manage the land and oversee the construction of a Ram Temple.
- The suit filed by the Nirmohi Akhara was dismissed as time-barred.
- Invoking Article 142, the Court directed that a "suitable prominent plot" of 5 acres be allotted to the Sunni Central Waqf Board in Ayodhya for building a mosque.
- The demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 was declared an "egregious violation of the rule of law."
RATIO DECIDENDI
On a balance of probabilities, the evidence for the Hindu parties' claim to the disputed site, based on continuous worship and belief in the site as the birthplace of Lord Ram, was found to be stronger than the Muslim parties' claim based on title and adverse possession. The 2010 High Court decree for a three-way partition was legally unsustainable. While granting the title to the Hindu deity, the Court must use its powers under Article 142 to ensure "complete justice" and remedy the illegal destruction of the mosque by providing land for its reconstruction elsewhere.