New Delhi: Curiously, the Ayodhya verdict does not specify the name of the judge(s) who authored the judgment. The practice is to specify the name of the judge who has authored the judgment on behalf of a bench.
However, this time the name may have been omitted owing to the sensitivity of the case.
More important, the unanimous judgment does not mention the name of the judge who differed on the issue of the exact birthplace of Lord Ram.
The judgment, at the very end of the order, duly acknowledges, “One of us, while being in agreement with the above reasons and directions, has recorded separate reasons on: ―Whether the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Ram according to the faith and belief of the Hindu devotees.
The reasons of the learned judge are set out in an addendum.'
So, while the bench concluded that the Babri Masjid was neither constructed upon a temple nor an Islamic structure, one of the five judges dissented on this aspect.