Why critics of majoritarianism on the Ayodhya verdict are wrong
India TodayBringing to a closure a case whose legal genesis can be traced back to 1885, the Supreme Court, in a 1,045-page, unanimous verdict by a five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, CJI-designate S.A. Bobde, Justices D.Y. Underscoring in the second paragraph of the introduction of the judgment that the Supreme Court had been 'tasked with the resolution of a dispute whose origins are as old as the idea of India itself', the apex court overturned the 2010 verdict of the three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had trifurcated the land between the Nirmohi Akhara, Ram Lalla Virajman and the Sunni Central Waqf Board. The apex court' in the name of 'equity', awarded the Sunni Central Waqf Board five acres of the acquired land near the site or in a 'suitable prominent place in Ayodhya'. "The Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case has given a decent legal burial to this long-simmering conflict," says Dr Rizwan Kaiser, professor of history at the Jamia Millia University in Delhi. Although All India Muslim Personal Law Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani said, "I respect the Supreme Court verdict but am not satisfied and will examine and file review within 30 days," Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board chairman Zafar Farooqui, in sharp contrast, asserted the opposite viewpoint, claiming that the board "will not file a review petition".