Lucknow, Sept. 30: The high court’s answer to the religious dispute has an old flavour, that of partition but with a potential to promote peace.

The disputed area in Ayodhya will be divided equally among the Sunni Central Wakf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman (treated as a legal person), the court ruled today.

The Ram idol will stay put where once the Babri Masjid stood and a permanent temple may replace the makeshift one — but the wakf board may build a mosque on land it will get adjacent to it.

Many legal experts were disappointed by the judgment, which to them appeared to expose fissures among the judges.

However, the verdict will not be implemented immediately. The bench of Justice D.V. Sharma, Justice S.U. Khan and Justice Sudhir Agarwal ordered status quo for three months to allow all sides to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The wakf board and the Hindu Mahasabha have already declared they will appeal. The verdict may thus mark the beginning of the next round of litigation and give the Centre, which has the thankless task of implementing the order, much-needed time.

All the three parties were declared joint owners of the land today, while another party, Rajendra Singh Visharad (son of late petitioner Gopal Singh Visharad), was allowed the right to worship the Ram idol but not given a share of the property.

The court declared the “area covered by the central dome of the three-domed structure, i.e. the disputed structure, being the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of Lord Rama as per faith and belief of the Hindus, belong to plaintiffs (Ram Lalla) and shall not be obstructed or interfered in any manner by the defendants”.

This area, therefore, goes to representatives of Ram Lalla Virajman. The rest of the inner courtyard will belong to both the wakf board and Ram Lalla’s representatives. The Nirmohi Akhara, the owner of the deities, would get the Ram Chabutra, where Ram was originally worshipped before his idol was surreptitiously placed in the mosque in December 1949. The Akhara will also get the Sita Rasoi and Bhandar, and will share these with the worshippers of Ram.

The rest of the outer courtyard will be shared by the Akhara and Ram Lalla, since this area has generally been used by Hindus for worship.

However, the court made it clear that the wakf board’s share must not be less than one-third of the total disputed premises and, if necessary, it will be given a portion of the outer courtyard.

If minor adjustments are to be made later — after the three parties submit their suggestions within three months — the affected party may be compensated with land from the area acquired by the Centre. This government land will be made available in such a way that all three parties can have separate entry and exit points, so they do not disturb one another’s rights.

The court directed the parties to approach the Centre — the statutory receiver of 71 acres of land in Ayodhya, including the 2.77-acre disputed area — to work out these schemes.

Disquiet

Almost all the parties were left bemused by the verdict. Wakf board counsel Zafrab Jilani said his client would appeal against the decision to declare its suit time-barred, that is, not filed within the period mandated by law. The Hindu Mahasabha will appeal against the “partitioning”.

“The judgment is a panchayati judgment,” constitutional expert Rajeev Dhavan said. “It has converted a title (ownership) suit into a partition suit. It seems to have denuded the Muslims of their legal rights and converted the moral sentiments of the Hindus into legal entitlements.”

He added: “As a basis for the future, the judgment is infirm. The better way would have been to uphold Muslim entitlement and appeal to them for the rights of Hindu worship.”

Two of the high court judges have declared Ram a legal person who can hold property in his own name and said, citing Archaeological Survey of India evidence, that the mosque had been built by destroying a Hindu temple.

Justice Khan, however, said the mosque was probably built on the ruins of a temple, with a major part of the debris used in the construction.

When the case was being heard, some Supreme Court lawyers had expressed disquiet over the composition of the bench. They had faulted the high court for not appointing Parsi, Sikh and Christian judges to eliminate allegations of bias.

“After all, justice should not only be done, but should be seen to be done,” one of the critics had said.

Former law minister Shanti Bhushan welcomed today’s verdict, though.

“It strengthens secularism and paves the way for amity between communities,” he said.

“For centuries, both sides have been worshipping jointly; the site has been in joint use. This used to be the old tradition in India.”

The high court has, therefore, ruled that the area was jointly held land in which all had equal shares, so that a Ram temple and a mosque could be built side by side, Bhushan said. “What could be more beautiful?”