M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, the Ayodhya title suit decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2019, is a primary legal source of the first order, the Court's own unanimous judgment resolving decades of litigation over the disputed site claimed by both Hindu and Muslim parties as Ram Janmabhoomi and the location of the demolished Babri Masjid. As the Court's own opinion, it is directly authoritative for the legal reasoning and the resulting land allocation the judgment ordered. The case remains a subject of intense and continuing public and scholarly debate over the judgment's underlying historical and archaeological findings and their weight in the Court's reasoning, so it should be cited as the controlling legal resolution while noting that the historical questions it addressed are contested well beyond the courtroom.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, the Supreme Court of India's own 2019 unanimous judgment in the Ayodhya title suit, is the Court's own primary opinion, treated at the top tier as direct authoritative legal text for the reasoning and land allocation the judgment ordered, notwithstanding that the underlying historical and archaeological findings it weighed remain a subject of continuing public and scholarly debate. NotesJudgment of 9 November 2019 awarding the disputed Ayodhya site for a temple, directing five acres elsewhere for a mosque, and holding the 1992 demolition an egregious violation of the rule of law. Merged from Source 3428: Primary legal record of the 2019 title verdict. The judgment itself states the archaeological evidence did not establish the religious identity of any structure that may have predated the mosque.
Citation
AuthorSupreme Court of India
PublisherCivil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010, decided 9 November 2019
Publication Year2019
Source Typelegal
Cross-Tradition Connections
Associated With
This source names India directly: "suit decided by the Supreme Court of India in 2019, is a primary legal source of the first order, the Court's own unanimous judgment resolving decades of litigation over the disputed site claimed by..."
Claims Backed By This Source (16 claims)
This source backs 16 claims across the atlas. As facts: 11 well-attested. As cited relationships: 1 holds. Plus 4 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Sources, 8 claims: 7 well-attested, 1 holds.
- Articles, 2 claims: 2 well-attested.
- Figures, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
- Sacred Sites, 2 claims: 1 well-attested, 1 general references.
- Deities, 1 claims: 1 general references.
- Regions, 1 claims: 1 general references.
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.