Petition filed in Supreme Court to survey Ram Mandir land

A new petition has been filed in the Supreme Court to inspect the boundaries and accuracy of the land of the Ram Mandir constructed in Ayodhya. Through this petition, a demand has been made for the constitution of an independent committee or commission to ascertain whether the Ram Mandir that has now been constructed or developed in Ayodhya is located on the exact same land and premises that was designated by the Supreme Court in its 2019 verdict.

According to a report by Business Standard, the hearing on this petition filed by the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Case Trust has been scheduled for November 2 next by the Supreme Court. According to the court list uploaded on the Supreme Court website, the hearing of this case will be held before a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.

The petition has requested the formation of a competent independent committee or commission appointed by the court. This committee should include qualified experts from survey, revenue, archaeology and other technical fields whom the court deems fit. The primary task of this committee will be to verify whether the construction of the temple has taken place on the exact same premises and land mentioned in the 2019 verdict. This investigation includes identifying the precise boundaries, coordinates, area and location of the site.

The petition further states that if any significant discrepancy or difference is found between the land designated by the Supreme Court and the land on which the temple has been constructed, appropriate directions be issued to ensure compliance with the order of the 2019 verdict. The petitioner has requested the concerned authorities and the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust to preserve all original documents, maps, plans, surveys and records related to the identification, demarcation and development of the temple premises and present them before the court.

Apart from the subject of the land, the petition has also emphasized other important matters. The petition has sought directions for the construction of various facilities for devotees coming from all over the world. Additionally, demands have also been made regarding the temple's accounts to maintain financial transparency and prevent any kind of mismanagement. The petition has demanded that donations, offerings and their receipts be recorded in digital format on a daily basis and displayed continuously. Furthermore, a demand has also been made for an annual audit to be conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG).

The history of this dispute in Ayodhya is quite old. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was situated at the disputed site in Ayodhya, which was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks on December 6, 1992, leading to communal riots. In the context of this dispute, the Allahabad High Court had ruled in 2010 that the 2.77 acres of disputed land in Ayodhya be divided equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and 'Ram Lalla'. Against this verdict, 14 appeals were filed in the Supreme Court.

Hearing these appeals, on November 9, 2019, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court delivered a historic verdict. In this unanimous verdict, the court had ruled that the 2.77 acres of disputed land where the Babri Masjid formerly stood shall remain with the receiver of the Central Government and be handed over to the trust within three months for the construction of the temple. This verdict paved the way for the construction of the Ram Mandir at the disputed site in Ayodhya by the trust.

At the same time, the Supreme Court had directed the Central Government to allot a 5-acre alternative plot at a "prominent" location in this holy town of Uttar Pradesh to the Sunni Waqf Board to build a new mosque. Now, through the new petition, a demand has been made for the precise identification of the land determined in that 2019 verdict and re-inspection of the records of the temple premises, so as to ensure that all procedures have taken place strictly in accordance with the court's order.