The Supreme Court today reserved its judgement in the Ayodhya Case after 40 days of arguments and hearings, making it the second longest case in the judicial history of the Supreme Court. The longest case hearing in judicial history of the Supreme Court is the landmark Keshavanada Bharati Case that coursed over 68 days of arguments and hearings resulting in the doctrine of basic structure that preserves judicial independence. Prohibitory orders under Section 144 have been put in place in Ayodhya till December 10 in lieu of the judgement.
The last day of hearing in the case took into an interesting turn of venets with Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan who represented the Muslim Parties tearing up documents handed by the Hindu Party that contained the pictorial representation of the Ram temple, after due permission from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. The documents in question where form the book "Ayodhya Revisted". The Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi mandated the hearings to conclude by 5pm today, thus bringing an end to one of the lonest and most tense hearings in the judicial history of the Supreme Court.
The origin of the dispute can be traced back to almost 1857, during the time of the British Administration that allowed muslims to perform namaz innside the Babri Masjid and the Hindus to perform pooja outside. The rift between Hindu and Muslim unity started after the violent act by a mob of enraged Hindus in the year 1992 who tried to demolish the mosque due to the discovery of an Idol of Lord Ram in it.The Central Government in an effort to curb tensions passed the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act 1993. This resulted in the Central Governement having sole control over the disputed alnd.
The constitutional validity of this Act was challenged in the Supreme Court in the Ismail Farooq v Union of India wherein the Court upheld the validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 and held that the mosque is not an essential part of Muslim religion. In 2013 the Allahabad High Court mandated a one third split to each of the parties in the dispute. This was again appealed to the Supreme Court. After a failed mediation process, the Supreme Court has decided to expedite arguments in the case.