Ayodhya has been in controversy for over 400 years and finally, this controversy had put to an end. Many people will be thinking so, but that’s not entirely true. After every event there is an after effect, there is one for this as well. The Ayodhya verdict is finally out which means the event is over and now it’s the time for after effects.

Is the decision taken by the Supreme Court on Ayodhya In favor of everyone
Source

For starters, this decision has been supported by a lot of people. The country has shown its understanding level and agreed on the decision given by the Supreme court. If not all, but a majority of the people are in favor. But, there are some people who think that the minorities have been wronged and this decision of the Supreme Court was biased.

The After Effect

Retired Supreme Court judge Ashok Kumar Ganguly raised a question on the decision taken by the Supreme Court. Ayodhya verdict was a politically-sensitive issue and the titled suit was disturbed by the judgment.

According to the judgment, the five-judge constitution bench in their verdict said that a Ram temple would be built at the 2.77-acre piece of land n Ayodhya. The order also included that the government will be giving Muslims an alternative five-acre plot in a prominent place in the city.

Is the decision taken by the Supreme Court on Ayodhya In favor of everyone
Source

This verdict was welcomed by almost everyone, with no exception of Hindu and Muslims. But seems like Ashok Kumar Ganguly felt that the minorities did not receive what they deserved.

Regarding this verdict, Ashok Ganguly said that,

“I am a little disturbed by the judgment. When the Constitution came we saw a mosque and in the previous judgment of the Supreme Court relating to the demolition it has been recorded that there was a 500-year-old shrine which has been demolished.”

He also added,

“When the Constitution came, the law became different. We recognized the fundamental right to freedom of religion; practice, preach and profess religion. If I have that fundamental right I also have the right to protect the shrines. The day the structure was demolished that right was also demolished.”

Ashok Ganguly, author of the book “Landmark Judgments That Changed India” also questioned the evidence which played the role in the judgment given by the judges. He asked what evidence did the judge based their judgment to say that the land belonged to Ram Lalla.

Questions Raised On the evidence In Ayodhya

According to the ASI reports, during the investigation of the site, they found a lot of evidence. But none of these excavation reports clearly said that there was a Ram temple before the mosque was built.

This point supported Ganguly’s point about the evidence. He said,

“You have said that there was a structure under the mosque but you have not said that the structure was that of a temple. There is no evidence that after the demolition of a temple, a mosque has been built. On the basis of what archaeological insight can court decide that after 500 years?”

Adding facts to these points,

“So considering it a mosque, which has been standing there for 500 years, how do you decide the title after 500 years? On what basis can you do it? Those who have come here to depose have documents. On the basis of archaeological report you cannot decide titles.”

The Bottomline

The verdict on Ayodhya has been given by the Supreme Court and it has been accepted by the majority. But still, there is a question of whether this decision by the Court was right or wrong. What do you think about the verdict? Do share your views in the comment section below.

Also Read: What Did ASI Found In Ayodhya Which Affected The Verdict?
Also Read: Ayodhya Case: This Is What The Opposition Has To Say

For the latest news and other trending topics, follow us on InstagramFacebook, and subscribe to our YouTube channel.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here