Ayodhya Verdict LIVE Updates: Entire Disputed Land Goes to Hindus for Ram Mandir, Muslims to Get 5 Acres of Alternate Land

Crux of the Ayodhya Verdict: The disputed land in Ayodhya goes to the Hindus in its entirety for the construction of Ram Mandir. The Sunni Waqf Boar will get five acres of alternate land, which will be accorded either by the state or the Centre.

Centre will hand over the disputed site to the Board of trustees and a suitable alternative plot of land measuring five acres at Ayodhya will be given to Sunni Waqf Board. In the scheme by Board of trustees, appropriate representation be given to Nirmohi Akhara.

The CJI is reading out all pointers:

- A suitable plot of land measuring 5 acre shall be given to Sunni Waqf Board either by the state or by the Centre

- Under Article 142, SC directs in the scheme to be framed, Nirmohi Akhara to also get representation

- Land to remain vested in statutory receiver till trust is formed

- Trust to be formed in three months

- Management of construction of the temple to be monitored by the trust

The CJI is reading out all pointers:

- Hindus to get land subject to conditions
- Central government to frame a scheme
- A trust will be formed
- Inner courtyard will be handed over to the trust
- A suitable plot of land measuring 5 acre shall be given to Sunni Waqf Board
- Centre must set a trust with board of trustees within 3 months

Muslim parties to get alternate land, rules CJI-Led Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. "Since the Babri mosque was brought down, Wrong committed must be limited," it says.

The CJI-led Constitution bench of the Supreme Court says that all forms of beliefs equal for Constitution. "Constitution speaks through judges. Worship of inner courtyard continued by Hindus even when in possession," the top court says.

For 325 years, from the construction of the mosque till 1857, Muslims have given no evidence of offering prayers at the disputed structure in exclusion of Hindus, it says. Destruction of the mosque in 1992 was in breach of SC order, says CJI-led bench.

The Muslims Sunni Waqf Board couldn't establish adverse possession on the disputed site. The disputed site is one composite whole, says Supreme Court. "No namaz after 1949," the SC adds. 

Citing evidence that Hindus continued praying there, at Ram Chabutara, garbh girja, Supreme Court rules Muslims haven't been able to establish possessory right on the disputed property.

But documents show that prior to 1857, Hindus were not barred from worshipping in the inner courtyard. The railings segregating the outer and inner courtyard was made in 1857. But Hindus always believed that the birthplace of Ram was in the inner courtyard of the mosque, says SC

The riots of 1934 and disturbances in 1949 show possession of inner courtyard was a matter of contestation. It can't be said Muslims have been able to establish their possessory title, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court says.

"It is clearly established that while Muslims offered prayers inside the inner courtyard, the same was done by Hindus in the outer court yard. Prior to 1856-57, there was no exclusion of Hindus from praying there. Exodus of Hindus from the inner courtyard remained contentious too. They continued to worship at Ram Chabutara and they worshipped the Garbh GiRja from the railings," says the SC.

Regarding Sri Ram Lalla Virajman's petition, the Supreme Court says that mere existence of a structure beneath the mosque cannot lead to a title today even if the SC finds that it was a Hindu temple. "There was no cessation of namaz or abandonment of structure by the Muslims," the SC says.

The Sunni Waqf Board's suit is maintainable, but Muslims can't assert the right of adverse possession, says the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court says that the travellogues also evidenced age-old belief that Lord Ram was born there. "Gazateers can also provide corroborative materials. Courts must be circumspect from drawing negative inference. Titles can't be established only on the basis of faith and belief. Sunni Waqf Board has the locucs to initiate legal proceedings," the top court says.

"Faith is a matter of individual believer. Once the court has the material that the faith is genuine, the court must not interfere and acknowledge it. Value of a secular Constitution lies in mutual deference," the Supreme Court says.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi is reading out for all five judges. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court will pronounce a unanimous judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute case.

The Supreme Court says that the Hindus consider Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram and the faith of Hindus is undisputed. 

The SC says that the underlying structure was not of Islamic religion as artefacts, architectural evidence had distinct non Islamic nature. ASI report can be lent credence to the underlying structure was dated 12th century, the SC says. But it adds that the ASI report hasn't said the underlying structure was a specific temple.

The SC has held that the ASI report that held that there was a structure underneath the Babri Masjid can't be dismissed as conjecture or just a guess work and junks theory of pre-existence of an Idgah at the disputed site. “Babri mosque wasn't constructed on a vacant land. An underlying structure did exist.”

The Constitution bench: Sri Ram Lala Virajman is a juristic entity, but Sri Ram Janmasthana isn't and the ASI report can't be dismissed as a conjecture or just a guess work.

Regarding Gopal Singh Visharad's suit, the Supreme Court ruled that the right asserted to worship at the disputed property can be pursued by others even if the original plaintiff died.

Nirmohi Akhara's Suit Barred by Article 120 | In a setback for one of the main Hindu parties in the case, the Supreme Court has said that the Nirmohi Akhara's suit is barred by limitation and government by Article 120.  The Supreme Court has also rejected that the Nirmohi Akhara is a shebait or manager of the disputed site.

A trial court in 1946 had ruled the Babri Masjid as the Sunni property. The Shia Waqf Board had, however, argued that the mosque hadn't been built by Babur — a Sunni — but his commander who had been a Shia. The Board, which had also been a party in the Allahabad High Court had petitioned the Supreme Court against the 1946 decree in a Special Leave Petition. The Shia board's claim that the mosque had not been built by Emperor Babur.

Shia Petition Dismissed | The Supreme Court judges have unanimously dismissed the Shia Waqf Board's petition claiming rights on the Babri mosque on the disputed land in Ayodhya.

Judges Sign Verdict | The judges comprising the Constitution bench have arrived at the courtroom. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer are signing the verdict on the Ayodhya land dispute, which will be delivered shortly. 

Copies of Judgment Brought to Courtroom in Sealed Cover | The copies of judgment in sealed cover have been brought inside the courtroom. The lawyers from both sides have also taken their seats in the front row.

The scene outside the courtroom at the Supreme Court:

A vendor arranges newspapers with headlines about Supreme Court's verdict on the disputed religious site in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh.

The courtroom door of the Supreme Court opens. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reached the top court to head the Constitution bench that will deliver the verdict on the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in minutes.