Supreme Court felt land division of disputed Ayodhya was unsustainable solution

The bench held that the Ram Janmabhoomi has no juristic personality, but Ram Lalla was a juristic person with legal rights. 

Published: 10th November 2019 09:34 AM  |   Last Updated: 10th November 2019 09:34 AM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (Photo | PTI)

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in its landmark Ayodhya ruling, called the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 order to divide the disputed site into three parts as “legally unsustainable”. 

The apex court bench observed that a division of the disputed land will not serve the interests of the relevant parties or secure a lasting peace between them.

“Even as a matter of maintaining public peace and tranquility, the solution which commended itself to the High Court is not feasible. The disputed site admeasures all of 1,500 square yards. Dividing the land will not sub-serve the interest of either of the parties or secure a lasting sense of peace and tranquility,” the bench ruled. 

The bench held that the Ram Janmabhoomi has no juristic personality, but Ram Lalla was a juristic person with legal rights.

“The Allahabad High Court has adopted a path that was not open to it in terms of the principles formulated above. It granted reliefs, which were not the subject matter of the prayers in the suits. In the process of doing so, it proceeded to assume the jurisdiction of a civil court in a suit for partition, which the suits before it was not,” the Supreme Court order stated.

The order further said, “This provision does not entitle the court in a civil trial to embark upon the exercise of recasting virtually the frame of a suit, which was undertaken by the High Court. There was no basis in the pleadings before the High Court and certainly no warrant in the reliefs that were claimed to direct a division of the land in the manner that a court would do in a suit for partition.”

Pointing out a serious flaw in the Allahabad High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court constitution bench said that granting an independent portion of the disputed land to Nirmohi Akhara, which had claimed to be the ‘shebait’ (a person who is appointed by temple authorities to serve the deity, maintain the property and manage it, and enjoys certain rights over the property) defied logic and was contrary to the settled principles of law.

Stay up to date on all the latest The Sunday Standard news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)


Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp