He had retired from the High Court on October 1, 2010 and given the judgment in favour of Ram Temple just 1 day before his retirement. Justice Sharma was known for his integrity and austere living. Despite holding such a high office, he used to cook his own food. A lifelong bachelor, Justice Sharma was a devotee of Hanumanji. His brother judges in the case, Justice Sudheer Agarwal and Justice S. U. Khan, had favored the partition of Ram Janmabhumi in 3 parts, one each for Ram Lalla, the Muslim party and Nirmohi Akhada, while Justice Sharma forcefully declared that the whole land belonged to the Shri Ram.
- The disputed land is the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram and this has been the belief of Hindus since time immemorial. Place of birth is a juristic person and is a deity. It is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as birth place of Lord Rama as a child.
- The disputed structure, so called Babri Masjid, was constructed by Babur. The year of construction is not certain. However, as the land was not legally possessed by Babur, the structure cannot be said to be a mosque even according to Islamic law. This point is very important while arguing for Mathura and Kashi temples. Both these mosques were constructed after demolishing pre existing Hindu temples. There are multiple evidences for the same, including archaeological ruins above ground as well as firmans of Aurangzeb who ordered the destruction of these temples. Thus, these two mosques are illegal even according to Islamic law.
- The disputed structure was constructed after demolition of a Hindu temple. The proofs adduced by the Archaeological Survey of India attest to the existence of a massive Hindu temple beneath the disputed structure. Although, it must be noted that the communist historians and academics continue to mendaciously dispute this fact despite being admonished for the same by the High Court.
- That the petitions of Sunni Central Board of Waqfs and Nirmohi Akhara, filed in 1989 are barred by time. This meant that they had no claim over the site due to delay in filing the cases after 1949, when the murtis were placed in the disputed structure. The Supreme Court barred suit filed by the Akhara, but allowed Sunni Waqf Board, thereby making only two parties to the dispute.
- The outer courtyard was in exclusive possession of Hindus and they were worshipping in the outer courtyard since time immemorial. The inner courtyard (in the disputed structure) they were also worshipping continuously since 1949. Thus the possession was also of the Hindus.
Many of these arguments were reiterated in the Supreme Court judgment, which also gave the whole land for construction of Ram Temple and thus vindicated the sagacity of Justice Sharma.
HinduPost offers its deep gratitude and pranams to the departed soul. May he attain sadgati. Om Shanti!
Did you find this article useful? We’re a non-profit. Make a donation and help pay for our journalism.
HinduPost is now on Telegram. For the best reports & opinion on issues concerning Hindu society, subscribe to HinduPost on Telegram.