Fact-check: Claims of Ram Mandir being built 3 KM away from original Babri Masjid are false
New Delhi: False claims circulating online assert that the ongoing construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya is not taking place at the original Babri Masjid site but rather 3 km away. This misinformation, shared widely on social media and by political figures, has been debunked upon closer examination.
The claim is based on a screenshot of Google Maps showing two locations: the construction site of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Temple and another spot labeled "Babar Masjid permanently closed" situated 3 km away. The assertion questions the legitimacy of demolishing the Babri Masjid if the temple is being built elsewhere. However, a thorough fact-check reveals the claim to be entirely unfounded.
Upon scrutiny, the screenshot indicates that the second location marked as "Babar Masjid" is, in fact, the Sita-Ram Birla Temple in Ayodhya. This is verified by comparing the Google Maps satellite image with the actual structure of the Birla Temple. Notably, the viral screenshot misspells "Babri Masjid" as "Babar Masjid," casting doubt on its credibility.
Satellite images from Google Earth Pro clearly depict the construction of a temple-like structure at the precise coordinates of the original Babri Masjid demolition site (26°47'43.74" N 82°11'38.77"E). Comparing old and new satellite images further confirms that major construction activities began in 2011, aligning with the initiation of the Ram Temple construction.
Moreover, existing photographs of the Babri Masjid, though challenging to precisely match, share essential structural elements with the current construction site, reinforcing the location as the original site of the mosque.
In conclusion, the viral claim that the Ram Temple is being built 3 km away from the Babri Masjid site is unequivocally false. Evidence from Google Maps, satellite imagery, and historical photographs conclusively disproves this misinformation, affirming that the temple construction is indeed taking place at the same location as the original Babri Masjid.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Justice Nagarathna dissents on SC collegium’s recommendation of Justice Pancholi
Dissent cites seniority concerns, Gujarat High Court’s over-representation
New Delhi: Supreme Court judge B.V. Nagarathna has recorded a dissent note against the collegium’s recommendation to elevate Patna High Court Chief Justice Vipul Manubhai Pancholi to the apex court, The Indian Express reported.
The five-member collegium, comprising Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, J.K. Maheshwari, and Nagarathna, reached the decision with a 4–1 split. Justice Nagarathna, the lone woman on the bench, opposed Pancholi’s elevation, citing concerns over seniority and regional representation.
Justice Pancholi ranks 57th on the all-India seniority list of high court judges. Justice Nagarathna reportedly objected to the move, noting that it came less than three months after another judge from the Gujarat High Court, Justice N.V. Anjaria, was elevated to the Supreme Court. She argued that advancing Pancholi would bypass several senior judges and further increase Gujarat’s representation at the top court, while other high courts remain underrepresented.
Her dissenting note, according to reports, emphasized that such decisions could undermine the credibility of the collegium system and have long-term consequences for the administration of justice.
Justice Pancholi, who served nearly two decades in the Gujarat High Court, was transferred to Patna High Court in July 2023 and appointed its Chief Justice in July 2025. His elevation, along with that of Justice Anjaria, was intended to maintain Gujarat’s representation in the Supreme Court following the retirements of Justices M.R. Shah and Bela Trivedi earlier this year.
With a sanctioned strength of 34 judges, the Supreme Court follows criteria of seniority, merit, integrity, and regional balance in appointments. Justice Nagarathna’s dissent highlights ongoing debates about diversity and fairness in judicial elevations.
