The sanctity of a temple remains even if it is destroyed, the Supreme Court was told by the lawyer representing the deity, “Ram Lalla Virajman”, on Wednesday.
Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan said the deity at the temple is immortal and even if an idol is broken or stolen, another image can be consecrated. He made this submission before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi which is holding a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title suit case.
The birthplace of Lord Ram at Ayodhya is itself a deity and no one can claim ownership right over the sacred place by merely putting up a structure like a mosque, the senior counsel said
Babri Masjid was demolished by a mob on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, leading to the protracted legal battle.
Fourteen 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 disputed land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and “Ram Lalla Virajman”.
Vaidyanathan said divinity for the deity is not lost when Justice SA Nazeer, one of the judges, asked him whether a Waqf property vested in God can be alienated. He said, according to Mohammedan law, recognised by courts in India, the Waqf property is not inalienable.
“Mohammedan law in India does not accept the inalienability of a mosque,” he said. But the same is not true in the case of a Hindu deity. To assert his argument that a temple is not an alienable property, Vaidyanathan referred to a Privy Council decision, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Privy Council was a judicial body that heard appeals from various courts in the British era.
{{/usCountry}}“Mohammedan law in India does not accept the inalienability of a mosque,” he said. But the same is not true in the case of a Hindu deity. To assert his argument that a temple is not an alienable property, Vaidyanathan referred to a Privy Council decision, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Privy Council was a judicial body that heard appeals from various courts in the British era.
{{/usCountry}}Sunni Waqf board was claiming title of the disputed land in Ayodhya on the basis of legal principle of adverse possession.
The doctrine of adverse possession comes into play when a person, who does not have the title of the property but can become its owner on the ground of his possession, on the grounds that the original owner did not evict him for 12 years.
“I am saying there was a temple and no one else can claim the title,” Vadyanathan said.
The temple’s sanctity remains even if it is destroyed, the counsel said. This statement was made when another judge, Justice DY Chandrachud, wanted to know how he was stating that if there was a temple at the site, its title can’t be transferred.
“The temple is invested with a character or ‘Res extra commercium’ [things outside commerce],” he replied. This doctrine refers to things that cannot be bought or sold such as public roads, rivers among others.
The senior lawyer concluded his arguments on behalf of the deity pursuant to which senior advocate Ranjit Kumar opened his arguments on behalf of Gopal Singh Visharad, the original petitioner in the civil suit before the high court. Kumar will proceed with his arguments on Thursday.