In Ayodhya judgment, SC relied on principles of possession and balance of probabilities, Pg10.

Key Highlights:

• The 2019 Ayodhya judgment spanned 1,045 pages over the 1,500 square yard disputed site.
• Court relied on the “test of preponderance of probabilities” and balance of probabilities to decide the title suit.
• Hindus were found to have unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard and preponderance of evidence for possession of the inner courtyard before 1857.
• The ASI report on whether a temple was demolished for Babri Masjid construction was found inconclusive.
• The Court dismissed reliance on the existence of an underlying 12th-century temple as basis for title.
• Judgment emphasized that title determination must rest on settled legal principles and civil law standards, not on faith or antiquity.

Detailed Insights:

• Court’s Reasoning:
  • The verdict rejected claims based on Mughal conquest or temple demolition as determinative for ownership.
  • It clarified that supra-national acts of conquest were not grounds for property rights in civil law.
  • Possession history and probability weighed in favor of Hindu claims.
• Legal Doctrine Applied:
  • Balance of probabilities: Court examined which claim was more probable based on available evidence.
  • Civil law principles governed title determination, not archaeological or theological assertions.
• Significance:
  • Judgment reaffirmed judicial secularism by keeping religious sentiment secondary to legal evidence.
  • Marked a turning point in resolving India’s most contentious dispute through rule of law.
  • Showcased how judiciary interprets historical claims through modern constitutional framework.

Scientific/Technical Concepts Involved:

• Balance of probabilities: A legal standard in civil cases where the court decides in favor of the claim that is more likely to be true.
• Preponderance of evidence: Standard requiring that a claim is more probable than not, based on available proof.
• Archaeological Survey of India (ASI): Conducted excavations, but findings were legally treated as supportive, not determinative evidence.