Ayodhya Ram Mandir Hearing Entered Its Final Week

Ayodhya Ram Mandir Hearing Entered Its Final Week

Ayodhya Ram Mandir Hearing Entered Its Final Week


•    The matter of Ayodhya has come to its final week hearing in the Supreme Court

•    Parties who are representing Hindus and Muslims are now required to conclude arguments by 17th October 2019

•    The Supreme Court is to be expected to deliver final judgment in Ayodhya case before 17th November 2019

The Ayodhya case had entered the final week of its hearing in the Supreme Court. If not extended by CJI Ranjan Gogoi led constitution bench, the hearing of the matter relating to the Ayodhya case shall conclude on 17th October 2019. A final judgement is likely to be given in another month's time. This may appear, to many, as simple Hindus vs Muslim case. However, the Ayodhya case is far more complex than a Hindu vs Muslim case.

As per law, this is case is about title suit. But, the arguments in the Supreme Court had lately focused on everything but who is the beholder of title of the land where Lord Ram was held to behave born or where the Babri Masjid stood till 6th December 1992.

Urging the Supreme Court for not rewriting history, the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya matter on 14th October 2019 had stated that the Constitution Bench must not go into the legality of ruler's action as it has never trodden this path previously. 

The senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for the Muslim parties, had told the five-judge bench which is been led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that don't go into legality of ruler's action. It is not for the Court to rewrite history; it may open a Pandora’s Box. The lawyer raised questions that what law would you apply to Babur? If Babur gets involved, Ashoka's action too shall also be judged.

Dhavan also stated the onus is on the Hindu part to prove their claim that a Ram Mandir stood at the disputed land since the title of the Muslim part has been incontrovertible from the year 1885.

However, arguing that there is nothing that makes Babri Masjid ‘un-Islamic’, the senior lawyer had stated that a mosque shall always remain a mosque and even demolition won’t be able to remove the character of the mosque. The senior lawyer had said that the structure which has been demolished at Ayodhya is still a mosque.

The submission has been made in response towards some queries posed by the Supreme Court last month over a few images of lions, birds as well as flowers at the now-demolished structure. Dhavan had stated that the Islamic law has been evolved over 15 centuries, cannot pick and select from the Quran and Hadith to say "you are acting against the Quran".

He also asked whether the Supreme Court will permit the digging of over 500 mosques, where there are assertions that they were built over some temples, and asked if a mosque could be invalidated 450 years later if some remains of another religious structure are found.

The lawyer had also alleged that queries are only been asked from Muslim parties and not posed towards the Hindu part in the politically sensitive land dispute case. Dhavan said to the bench on the 38th day of the crucial hearing in the matter that the Court did not ask question to the other side, and all the questions were asked to them only.” Dhavan said after raising question that “Of course, we are answering them”.

The submission has been strongly opposed by senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, who is representing deity 'Ram Lalla'. He stated that “This is totally unwarranted”. Dhavan's comment came when the bench, which also contains justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, stated that the indication behind erecting iron railing at the disputed place was to separate the inner courtyard from the outer courtyard.

The court held that by placing up an iron railing, the plan was to separate Hindus and Muslims and it was to appreciate the fact that Hindus had been offering prayers in the outer-courtyard where 'Ram Chabutra', 'Sita Rasoi', 'Bhandar Grih' were located.

The bench likewise took note of Dhavan's submissions that the Hindus had only “prescriptive right” in order to enter as well as offer prayer at the place and it doesn’t mean that they had possession claim over the disputed property.

They also had the right to pray and enter and does it not remove your right towards ownership, the bench questioned, adding in case of "exclusive ownership" over a property, could a third person be permitted entry and prayer right.

The long-drawn-out hearing in the case had entered the vital final stage on 14th October 2019 as the Supreme Court had recommenced proceedings on the 38th day after the Dussehra break.
However, 14 appeals had been filed in the Supreme Court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be divided equally amongst the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.


The hearing of the politically sensitive land dispute case had entered its final stage with the judges being firm to conclude the arguments by 17th October 2019. Chief Justice Gogoi is heading the five-judge constitution bench also hearing the case may retire on 17th November and unless the Supreme Court reaches at a verdict before that, the whole procedure will begin again.
The bench had begun the day-to-day hearings on 6th August after the mediation proceedings recommended by the court failed to find an agreeable resolution to the decades-old dispute.
The dispute involved 2.77 acres of land in Ayodhya, which right-wing activists consider was the birthplace of Lord Ram. A 16th Century mosque is also held to have been built by the Mughal Emperor Babur, which stood at the location was razed in December 1992 through right-wing activists who alleged that a temple had to make way for it.


eStartIndia Team

Leave a Comment

Previous Comments

Related Blogs