Thread by @manuvichar

In the wake of impending #AyodhyaBhoomipoojan, I happened to come across some comments that the Supreme Court has accepted the claim that the Babri Masjid was built after demolishing an existing temple.

Replugging a piece to clear the air on that.

livelaw.in/columns/ayodhy…

1. SC did not hold that the Babri mosque was built over a temple.
2. The verdict was not based on ASI reports.
3. It referred to the ASI report which suggested the existence of a structure of 12th century of Hindu origin under the mosque.
#AyodhyaRamMandir

4. But, the report was inconclusive as to whether the structure was a temple, or whether it was destroyed by human action.
5. SC suggested that the long gap of nearly 400 yrs years between the structure and the mosque makes it probable that it was naturally destroyed.

#Ayodhya

6. The Court repeatedly clarified in its judgment that it cannot correct perceived "historic wrongs".

7. The decree in favour of Hindu plaintiffs was based on the finding that Muslim parties could not prove uninterrupted possession between 1528 and 1857...

...while Hindu side could show uninterrupted possession since 1857(this was arrived at after a highly stretched and convoluted mode of evaluating evidence).

8. The judgment says it's based on laws of evidence and not articles of faith.

9. The judgment declares that the damage of Mosque in 1934, placing of idols under its central dome in 1949 and its destruction in 1992 are "egregious violations of rule of law".

10. The judgment affirmed the principles of secularism and upheld Places of Worship Act.

While the judicial acknowledgement of the illegalities committed against the Babri structure in the post independent India is comforting, without actual acts of reparation and punishment of perpetrators and conspirators of demolition, such words will remain meaningless.
#Ayodhya