Supreme Court reserved its judgment after 40 days of hearings in Ayodhya land title dispute. Court gave all parties time to conclude their arguments by 5 PM on Wednesday. The final day of hearing saw high drama in court with Rajeev Dhavan representing Muslim parties tearing up a pictorial map provided by the All India Hindu Mahasabha purportedly showing the exact birthplace of Lord Ram. That was preceded by an argument by the 2 lawyers to which the apex court judges took exception saying the court can’t hear the matter in such an environment.
From the Hindu parties, Lawyer Sushil Jain argued for Nirmohi Akhara, Senior Advocate K Parasan represented ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’, C S Vaidyanathan, P Narasimha, P N Mishra represented Ram Janmbhhomi Punaruddhar Samiti, Hari Shankar Jain represented Hindu Mahasabha and Ranjit Kumar represented Gopal Singh Visharad.
The main arguments put forth by Hindu parties during the course of 40 days of hearings are:
Mosque was constructed after demolishing the temple. The disputed structure was erected over 14 towers of Hindu temple that depicted Shiva, Hanuman, Lotus, and Garud sitting with Lions. A grand temple existed at the disputed site 2000 years ago. The disputed structure was built on the foundations of the temple. The sacred nature of the birthplace of Lord Ram is a matter of faith for crores of people. Prayers have been offered here for centuries. Well before idols of Lord Ram appeared in the disputed structure, prayers were offered to the deity. Placement of idols is not necessary for a temple. Hindus don’t worship God in a single form. A shila is worshipped at Kedarnath temple. Hills too are worshiped by Hindus.
As per Islamic principles, a structure forcibly built over a place of worship cannot be a mosque.
For 70 years namaz was not offered at the disputed structure. Even earlier prayers were offered only on Friday.
Ram Lall Virajman and Sri Ram Janmsthan have been recognised as ‘legal entity’ and for Hindus, the entire birthplace of Lord Ram is a matter of faith. Archaeological evidence, religious texts, and write-ups by foreign tourists show that the disputed structure is the birthplace of Lord Ram. Constructing a mosque after demolishing Ram temple was a historical wrong that the apex court must correct.
There are 50 – 60 mosques in Ayodhya alone and Muslims can offer namaz at them instead of the disputed structure. But for Hindus, the disputed structure is the birthplace of their Lord Ram and their place of worship can’t be taken away from them. Till 12 years after idols of Lord Ram appeared inside the disputed structure in 1949, the other side remained inactive.
Sunni Waqf Board moved court only in 1961 and hence it lost the right to file a lawsuit that has moved court beyond the permissible time. Lawyer arguing for Ram Lalla, Vaidyanthan said that Muslim witnesses have admitted that the place which Muslims call Babri Masjid is known among Hindus as the birthplace of Lord Ram and worship has been done at the spot for centuries by the Hindus.
On the other hand, the Muslim parties were represented by senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, Meenakshi Arora, Shekhar Nafde, Nizam Pasha and Zafaryab Jilani. They argued for nearly 20 days.
Muslim parties argued that the Mosque was not constructed after bringing a temple down. ASI report also does not verify that the mosque was built after demolishing a temple. Motoffs of peacock and lotus don’t prove that a temple existed there. A picture of the disputed structure taken in 1950 shows Allah written in Arabic at THREE places of the structure. The appearance of the idols of Ram Lalla was part of a pre-meditated conspiracy and not an Act of God. No objection to building a birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya. Objection exists to claims of Hindu parties to the central dome. Nirmohi Akhara does have the right to service but no title right.
Supreme Court was hearing appeals against the 2010 judgment of Allahabad HC by a 2:1 majority, ruling three-way division of 2.77 acres of the disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. On the 6th of August, the apex court commenced day-to-day hearing on the land dispute after mediation proceedings came a cropper.