• search
For Quick Alerts
ALLOW NOTIFICATIONS  
For Daily Alerts

Ayodhya case: On 5th day of hearing, arguments in SC on whether temple existed

By Shreya
|

New Delhi, Aug 13: The crucial day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive Ayodhya land dispute case in the Supreme Court began on Tuesday with arguments on whether a temple existed at the disputed site.

Supreme Court

Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, advanced arguments on whether there was an existing temple over which the mosque came up, before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

Three judges of the Allahabad High Court had held that there was a temple at the disputed site, Vaidyanathan told the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

"Justice SU Khan of the high court had said that the mosque was built on the ruins of the temple," the senior advocate told the bench.

Will curbs in Jammu and Kashmir be eased: Hearing in SC today

Senior advocate K Parasaran, also appearing for deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman' told the court that it must do "full and complete justice" in all matters before it.

What happened in the last hearing

On the fourth day of the hearing, Parasaran had responded to the apex court's query as to how the 'Janmasthanam' (birth place of deity) can be regarded as a "juristic person" having stakes as a litigant in the case.

SC to hold day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya case

"The idol is not necessary in Hinduism for a place to be regarded as a temple," he had said, adding "Hindus do not worship Gods in any definite form, rather they worship them as divine incarnation having no form."

The top court, meanwhile, had made it clear that it would continue with the day-to-day hearing of the land dispute case and would consider granting mid-week breaks to senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, counsel for Muslim parties, including litigant M Siddiq, for preparing arguments.

Earlier, the bench had asked the counsel for the deity as to how the birth place of Lord Ram can be regarded as a "juristic person" having stakes as a litigant in the case.

It had said that so far as Hindu deities are concerned, they have been legally treated as juristic person, which can hold properties and institute, defend and intervene in lawsuits. However, it had asked as to how 'Janamsthanam' can file the case in the land dispute as a party.

Parasaran had said that even the birth place of the deity can be considered as a juristic person.

The Ayodhya case

The law suit filed by the deity in the Ayodhya case has also made the birth place of Lord Ram a co-petitioner, and has sought claim over the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land at Ayodhya, where the structure was razed on December 6, 1992.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished.

OneIndia News (with PTI inputs)

For Daily Alerts
Get Instant News Updates
Enable
x
Notification Settings X
Time Settings
Done
Clear Notification X
Do you want to clear all the notifications from your inbox?
Settings X
X
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. This includes cookies from third party social media websites and ad networks. Such third party cookies may track your use on Oneindia sites for better rendering. Our partners use cookies to ensure we show you advertising that is relevant to you. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on Oneindia website. However, you can change your cookie settings at any time. Learn more