The daily hearing of the appeals against the September 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ram Janmabhoomoi-Babri Masjid case commenced in the Supreme Court on Tuesday before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi.
In its opening remarks, Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties to whom the HC have a third of the disputed land, sought control of the entire 2.77 acres on the grounds that Muslims had stopped offering Namaz inside the complex in 1934, after which only Hindus have offered prayers there.
Before the counsel of Nirmohi Akhara opened his arguments, lawyer for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the latter’s application seeking video recording and live streaming of the proceedings. The bench rejected his prayer saying it was not feasible now.
As many as 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, 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 9the personification of the deity). The court last week ordered the start of daily hearing of the case after mediation efforts suggested by it in march failed to make much headway.
Senior Advocate Sushil Jain representing the Akhara submitted that there was no dispute regarding the outer courtyard till the Sunni Wakf Board filed a suit in 1961. He explained the Akhara was not demanding ownership but possession of the place by the virtue of managing and having charge of the site.
{{/usCountry}}Senior Advocate Sushil Jain representing the Akhara submitted that there was no dispute regarding the outer courtyard till the Sunni Wakf Board filed a suit in 1961. He explained the Akhara was not demanding ownership but possession of the place by the virtue of managing and having charge of the site.
{{/usCountry}}Jain exhibited the site plan and pointed out that the inner courtyard as well as the Janmasthan -- the birth place of Lord Rama – was always in possession of his client.
“We were in possession of inner courtyard and Ram Janmasthan for hundreds of years. Outer courtyard having ‘Sita Rasoi’, ‘Chabutra’, ‘Bhandar Grah’ were in our possession and it was never a part of dispute in any case,” Jain argued. He read out parts of the impugned judgement and said even the HC interpreted absence of “wuzu” – by which Muslims wash hands and legs before Namaz – to conclude that prayers had not been offered at the site for long and thus the disputed structure ceased to be a mosque.
Jain also said his client suffered due to the wrongful attachment of the place by the city magistrate of Faizabad, giving rise to a cause of action and filing of a suit before the court.
The hearing also witnessed heated exchanges between the Chief Justice of India and Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan who represents one of the appellants . Dhavan interjected when the CJI asked Jain to confine his arguments to the civil dispute and skip reading what was not necessary. Dhavan said he hoped he would not be curtailed.
At this the CJI said Dhavan would get his chance to which the latter replied: “I hope so.” This upset the bench and provoked the CJI to remark: “DO you have any doubt?” The CJI then reminded Dhavan that he was an officer of the court and should maintain dignity.