This is really an interesting judgment and I think for the first time such a sensitive thing is being dealt with data and facts rather than politics. I know it may sound a little weird that the verdict talks about Babur and dates like 1546. But if I compare it with other religions I still feel Hindus have been much more restrained compared to Christians and the Muslims.
Just imagine if someone had constructed a temple at the birth place of Muhammad or Jesus. Like the case of Ram's birth place there's no solid historical proof of where exactly Muhammad or Jesus were born - but still people have considered some sites as their birth place and revered those places as their most sacred pilgrimages. Then why such a big fuss about a Hindu prophet - just because he is older than the other prophets by a few thousands of years and there are even more scant historical data about him?
Even if I accept Karunanidhi's argument that Ram is not a historical figure, which may be correct, still millions of people have believed his existence with all their reverence and love for so many years. So irrespective of the authenticity of the Ram's historical existence we should respect what so many people have believed for so long.
Also the Hindus haven't claimed any such temple that had been destroyed by the Muslim rulers for five centuries - this one is the only one that they have claimed and that also because there's a much larger sentiment associated with it.
I really sad that it took so long to sort this issue. And I feel very happy also that Indian judiciary finally didn't bow to the pressures of populist political parties.