DAY 3 HEARING OF AYODHYA CASE

0
69
ayodhya

The Ayodhya case was referred to a Constitution Bench on 9th January of this year. Prior, a three-judge Bench had declined to the issue to a bigger Bench.

The apex court, seeing that the mediation efforts in the decades-old dispute had failed, took up the case for everyday hearings beginning from Tuesday i.e. 6th of August. Before the contentions started, the bench, involving Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazeer, rejected the plea for recording the Ayodhya case proceedings as was sought by previous RSS ideologue KN Govindacharya.

BRIEF OF DAY 1 HEARING:

  • Nirmohi Akhara presented his arguments first on Tuesday saying that they have been fighting for this for so long because it is an issue of emotions for them.
  • It was also contended by Nirmohi Akhara that –‘No Muslims were allowed to enter the structure since 1934’. He additionally referred to decisions to back his argument that “a spot can’t be viewed as a mosque if no prayers or namaz are offered there.” Citing another proof, the council said that the absence of arrangement for ‘wuzu’, by which Muslims wash hands and feet before namaz, at questioned site was interpreted by the Allahabad high court to arrive at the conclusion that prayers were not being offered there for long and thus it had ceased to be a mosque.

  • CJI on the first date of hearing asked the petitioner to prove that there was the existence of any temple and there was an idol in it.

BRIEF OF DAY 2 HEARING:

  • Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, for the Nirmohi Akhara, continued his argument on day 2 that the suit is not barred by limitation.
  • When the admitted original documents could not be produced, the bench chose to hear Senior Advocate K. Parasaran for plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad.
  • Parasaran spoke on Limitation by citing judgments concerning when the cause of action arises. K Parasaran also cited historical texts to buttress contention of the existence of Ram temple at Ayodya.
  • Jain discussed the position of the Akhara as a ‘shebait’ in respect of the temple.
  • Mr. Parasaran said that the act of placing the idols was complete and could be a continuing consequence of a wrong, because of the subsequent attachment and injunction. “It is like trespass”, observed Justice Bobde, asking if the idols have been carbon dated.

DAY 3 HEARING:

  • The Supreme Court on Thursday started hearing on the third day in the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case in Ayodhya after efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation failed.
  • The counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman The counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman told the court on that the “unshakeable faith” of millions of believers is sufficient to prove that the entire disputed site at Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Ram.
  • Senior Advocate K. Parasaran for Ram Lalla also contended that, be it a temple or a mosque, either way, it is one integrated entity. We can’t say that physically ‘you take this’, ‘you take this’. We can’t partition an institution or bisect it”. He also mentioned the tale of King Solomon in his argument.
  • He proceeded to discuss the concepts of Janmasthan and Janmabhoomi. He said that “‘Janmabhoomi’ means the whole thing’ and ‘Sthan’ means a place, town or locality; not the entire surroundings.
  • He also submitted before the court that The Janma Sthan has become a personification of the deity and hence, an object of worship. It is believed that God’s spirit lives in the Sthan. This faith is itself evidence that the Sthan is where Lord Ram was born”
  • On Wednesday, Mr. Parasaran had said that the act of placing the idols in the Masjid was complete and could be a continuing consequence of a wrong which was “snapped” by the order of the court for attachment of disputed property and the appointment of the receiver.
  • When asked by Justice D. Y. Chandrachud that whether the source of worship is a juridical person and also Justice S. A. Bobde noted that the Uttarakhand High Court has said that a river is a legal person to which Mr. Parasaran responded that the concept of a juridical person is not executive but judicial. It is entirely within Lordship’s judicial power to say.
  • Reference was made on to a earlier decision where a question emerged in light of the fact that adjustments had been made by the Swetambaris (one of the two Jain orders) in the character of the ‘charans’ in specific places of worship and the Digambaris griped that the said modifications amounted to an interference with their rights.

 With this, the hearing for day 3 ended and will continue on day 4 i.e. 9th of August.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here