Disputed structure built against Islamic tenets: Justice Sharma

October 01, 2010 12:39 am | Updated December 03, 2021 12:30 pm IST - New Delhi:

Justice D.V. Sharma, one of the three judges who delivered the verdict in the Ayodhya title suits on Thursday, disagreed with the decision of the majority, on a Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Lucknow, that one-third of the disputed land should be given to Muslims for construction of a mosque.

In a separate judgment, Justice Sharma, who is retiring on Friday, dismissed the Uttar Pradesh Central Sunni Waqf Board's suit claiming title to the disputed site, holding that it was time barred.

Justices S.U. Khan and Sudhir Agarwal, in separate but concurring judgments, declared Muslims, Hindus and the Nirmohi Akhara (another Hindu plaintiff) joint title-holders of the property/premises in dispute (to the extent of 2.77 acres) and wanted one-third of the land given to Muslims for construction of a mosque.

Of the 28 issues framed, Justice Sharma answered a majority in favour of the Hindu-plaintiffs and ruled against the Waqf Board.

On “whether the disputed site is the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram,” the judge held that “the disputed site is the birthplace of Lord Ram. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as [the] birthplace of Lord Rama as a child. Spirit of divine ever remains present everywhere at all times for any one to invoke in any shape or form in accordance with his own aspirations and it can be shapeless and formless also.”

On the status of the disputed site e.g. inner and outer courtyards, Justice Sharma said: “It is established that the property in suit is the site of Janm Bhumi of Ram Chandra Ji and Hindus in general had the right to worship Charan, Sita Rasoi, other idols and other objects of worship existed upon the property in suit. It is also established that Hindus have been worshipping the place in dispute as Janm Sthan i.e. a birthplace as deity and visiting it as a sacred place of pilgrimage as of right since time immemorial.”

On whether the disputed building was a mosque; when it was built and by whom, the judge said, “The disputed building was constructed by Babar, the year is not certain but it was built against the tenets of Islam. Thus, it cannot have the character of a mosque.”

ASI proof

On whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple, he said “the disputed structure was constructed on the site of [the] old structure after demolition of the same. The Archaeological Survey of India has proved that the structure was a massive Hindu religious structure.”

On whether the idols were placed in the building on the night of December 22/23, 1949, Justice Sharma said: “The idols were placed in the middle dome of the disputed structure in the intervening night of 22/23 of December 1949. It is also proved that the outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping throughout and in the inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping. It is also established that the disputed structure cannot be treated as a mosque as it came into existence against the tenets of Islam.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.