: The Supreme Court’s places majoritarian might over the law scroll.in/article/943405/the-d

Far from punishing the 1992 destruction of the Babri Majid, the court has actually endorsed the aim of the act.

"The aim of the 1992 Babri Masjid destruction was to build a temple at the site of the mosque. The court’s convoluted reasoning has ensured that this aim stands fulfilled. In effect, majoritarian mob violence has been rewarded."
amp.scroll.in/article/943405/t

1. The Muslim side did not lose the Ayodhya case because of adverse possession claim.
2. The court allotted the title for a composite land but determined possession in divided parts, giving the Hindu side a huge advantage.

scroll.in/article/943271/supre

So the Supreme Court says no title to Muslims because they could not show exclusive possession of the site prior to 1857. The fact is neither can the Hindu side. But still title was awarded to Ram Lalla.

scroll.in/article/943177/ayodh

Remember, Ayodhya matter is a land title dispute. Our only hope is for the Supreme Court to treat it that way and not convert the case into a question of faith.

Plus, no matter what happens today, December 6, 1992 will remain a shameful day when fanatics tore the secular fabric of India.

Masthead

All the news that's fit to toot.