The hearing in the politically and religiously sensitive decades-old temple-mosque land dispute in Ayodhya was the second longest proceedings in the history of the Supreme Court which had lasted for 40 days.
The high voltage hearing in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute involving 2.77 acres of land had commenced on August 6 and concluded on October 16, and the apex court pronounced the verdict on Saturday.
In the unanimous verdict the court cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site, and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
In one of the most important and most anticipated judgements in India’s history, a 5-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi put an end to the more than a century old dispute that has torn the social fabric of the nation.
The arguments in the matter were the second longest after the landmark Keshvanand Bharti case in 1973 during which the proceedings for propounding the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution continued for 68 days.
On the concluding day of the marathon hearing, the bench had observed “enough is enough”. The day was marked by high drama when Rajeev Dhawan, a senior counsel for the Muslim parties, tore a pictorial map provided by Hindu Mahasabha purportedly showing the exact birth place of Lord Ram in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.
The third longest hearing in the top court was on the validity of Aadhaar scheme and had lasted for 38 days in the top court which came into existence in 1950.
The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had came out with schedules for Ayodhya dispute hearing more than once and the arguments were first fixed to be concluded by October 18. That was later advanced to October 17, but on October 16, the bench decided to wrap it all up saying “enough is enough”.
The bench was racing against time since the verdict was to be delivered before Justice Gogoi demits office on November 17.
After wrapping up the hearing and reserving the verdict, it had granted three days to contesting parties to file written notes on ‘moulding of relief’ or narrowing down the issues on which the court is required to adjudicate.
The marathon hearing was marked by frequent heated exchanges between the lawyers of the Hindu and the Muslim sides, and midway the issue of settling the dispute through mediation once again cropped up.
The first mediation bid failed to find an amicable resolution leading to the commencement of day-to-day hearing from August 6.