The cloud of uncertainty that hung over the Ayodhya verdict, to be delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, has lifted. On the face of it, almost all parties to the dispute, the wary litigants battling it out in courts over six decades, are looking forward to the early delivery of the verdict, even if they are unsure of the outcome.
Zafaryab Jilani, counsel for the Sunni Wakf Board, and S. Shahbuddin, member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's Committee on Babri Masjid, would not hazard a guess which way the verdict would swing. But they were one in categorically stating here on Tuesday that they would honour the verdict, whichever way it went, while reserving their constitutional right to appeal to the Supreme Court in the event of an adverse order.
They welcomed the end of uncertainty and the end of any further delay of a verdict that has been in the making for the last 61 years. Mr. Shahbuddin lamented: “All these years successive governments have failed to assert that irrespective of the outcome of the judicial process — after the final verdict comes from the Supreme Court — they would ensure its implementation. That has created all manner of doubts, although we have stated many times we will not flinch from facing the consequences of an adverse judgment.”
Mr. Jilani said he was awaiting the verdict with “neither hope nor despair but with a view to accepting what is delivered.” They will not celebrate the verdict if it is in their favour, nor would they greet it with sadness, if it is adverse, and above all, they express the hope that peace will prevail.
In stark contrast, there was an air of pessimism in the offices of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, where top leaders of the organisation were on Tuesday openly expressing fears about an adverse judicial verdict from the High Court. Giriraj Kishore and Pravin Togadia have made it clear that they cannot accept a verdict other than one that would favour and facilitate the building of a “grand Ram temple” on the disputed site. Mr. Togadia did add that the VHP — through the other ‘Hindu' litigants — would “indirectly participate in the constitutional and legal process” of appealing to the Supreme Court in the event of an adverse verdict, but “will not wait” to start a “movement on the ground in favour of building a Ram temple even if the High Court verdict was adverse.”
“From today you will not see us in Delhi. We will be going to different areas,” Mr. Togadia said, indicating that “without waiting for the final verdict from the Supreme Court,” the VHP led by the committee of ‘sants' (mentored by it), would start to mobilise people in favour of constructing a Ram temple. “We cannot countenance any other finality on this issue,” he said.
Six-decade legal battle
The verdict to be delivered on Thursday will mark the second important landmark in the legal battle that has spread over six decades — the first round went to the litigants claiming to represent the Hindu community when, by a judicial verdict, the locks of the Babri Masjid were opened in 1986 to allow regular ‘pooja' of the Ram Lalla deity installed there in the dead of night of December 22/23, 1949. Muslims were simultaneously forbidden to come anywhere near the disputed structure, some of the parties to the dispute pointed out. Then in 1992, despite a status quo order of the Supreme Court, the Masjid was demolished by thousands of ‘kar sevaks' led by the VHP, the BJP and their affiliates.
The Hindu Mahasabha, a party to the dispute, has announced a ‘havan' and a ‘yagnya' at 11 a.m. on September 30 — prayers for a verdict favouring the building of a temple.
Keywords: Ayodhya verdict, Babrimasjid demolition, Ayodhya title suits







Whatever be the judgement today, a judgement empowering the Central Government to acquire the disputed land and give to the department of Archeology and Museology to keep it as a National Monument for all the citizens to visit. Different Plots of land can be assigned to the concerned parties, a few kms away from the sight to build their respective temple/mosque. That will make an impartial judgement and solve the problem.
how mush take time for result
Let us respect the court verdict and live peacefully.
Dear Friends, Let us be practical and open minded and think about future more than the past ill happenings. Let us respect the court verdict and live peacefully. I hope now people of all communities knows what is good and what is bad therefore let us not give a chance or support to antisocial elements. Now in each field people belongs to different communities live and work together without any differences therefore why so big issue. You know whom so ever is looking to do hue and cry has never preyed God or going to pray but since they do not have any work will surely look to create some non-sense, which surely will be objected by all literate people. Let us unite ourselves and respect the court verdict to show the Indian Democracy to the World Community. Jai Hind.
I have no idea our country is mature to accept verdict due to our literacy laval and inequality of income and property. Our Minority comunity mainly muslim in west bengal is below 86%
Dear Friends,
Let us be practical and open minded and think about future more than the past ill happenings. Let us respect the court verdict and live peacefully. I hope now people of all communities knows what is good and what is bad therefore let us not give a chance or support to antisocial elements. Now in each field people belongs to different communities live and work together without any differences therefore why so big issue. You know whom so ever is looking to do hue and cry has never preyed God or going to pray but since they do not have any work will surely look to create some non-sense, which surely will be objected by all literate people. Let us unite ourselves and respect the court verdict to show the Indian Democracy to the World Community.
Jai Hind
It's the fundamental duty of the indian constitution to eradicate superstition and blind belief. Hence the Court verdict should uphold the duties of every citizen and give a constitutional judgement than a religious one. As einstien says Religion without scientific temper is dangerous. Hence the verdict for me should be Scientific and nothing to do with these Hooligans on Both sides will be proud of,
Either it is to be the law of the Courts, or it is the Law of the Jungle (streets), and what happens in the interim between this Court's announcement of the verdict and the Supreme Court's decision on appeal will describe India in the 21st Century and for all time to come thereafter. Dissent and debate are legitimate means of delivering the benefits of democracy, but threats of violence and disruption of civil life are not. We are all "minorities" in some walk of life or other, and how we act when we are the preponderant majority can either be a badge of honour or a mark of shame.
Each person offers prayers to his god for a verdict in his favour and puts respective Gods in dilemma and we see the result through Court judgment as to which god is more powerful. It is our thought and concept that make our God as susceptible and vulnerable to our claims.
Please Email the Editor