Ayodhya Dispute: Nirmohi Akhara Asked to Come Prepared with Proof

The SC is hearing appeals filed against the 2010 Allahabad HC judgment that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

(Photo altered by The Quint)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday, 7 August, felt that a Hindu body, which is claiming right over the entire 2.77 acre of disputed land at Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, has to be given an opportunity to come out with revenue records, documentary and oral evidence to establish its possession.

The apex court found that Nirmohi Akhara was ill-prepared to proceed with its arguments on the issues.

On the second day of the day-to-day hearing, the top court stopped senior advocate Sushil Jain, who was arguing on behalf of Nirmoni Akhara, saying that he has to come prepared with "good piece" of evidence to buttress the claim over the possession of the property.

“Now, we are dealing with the possession. You have to establish the possession. If you have any revenue record in your favour then it is a very good piece of evidence in your favour.”

SC bench

The SC bench comprised Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer.

When the bench was asking Nirmohi Akhara for oral, documentary proof, revenue records, Jain said they are handicapped there.

He said a dacoity happened in 1982 and they lost the records.

While giving chance to Nirmohi Akhara to come prepared with the chart of evidence and other documents, the bench proceeded with the hearing by asking senior advocate K Prasaran to put forward his arguments for deity 'Ram Lalla', another party in the case.

‘Unshakeable Faith of Hindus Enough to Prove Lord Ram Born at Ayodhya's Disputed Site’

'Ram Lalla Virajman', the deity which itself has been made a party to the politically and religiously sensitive case, submitted through senior advocate K Parasaran that the Ram Janmabhoomi has itself become "personification of the deity and an object of worship for the Hindus".

He asked the court as to how after so many centuries the proof of Lord Ram's birth at the place can be shown.

“How will we prove after so many centuries that Lord Ram was born there? The unshakeable faith of worshippers and believers is itself evidence that the ‘Asthan’ is the birthplace of Lord Ram.”

Prasaran, to the five-judge Constitution Bench

Valmiki Ramayana also mentions at three places that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya, he said.

The bench asked Prasaran if question of this nature about the birth of a religious figure has ever arisen in any court.

"Whether issues like birth of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem have been questioned and dealt with by any court in the world," the bench asked Prasaran, to which the senior advocate said that he will check and inform the court.

The senior advocate replied to several questions relating to the placing of idols inside the disputed structure, years before its demolition on 6 December 1992.

Parasaran said whether it is a wrong or not, the placing of idols will depend upon whether the structure was a mosque or a temple.

"If it was a wrong (placing of idols) assuming it to be a continuing wrong, then the continuing wrong was snapped when the court intervened and receiver was appointed," he said.

"A receiver having possession of property pursuant to a court order cannot be a continuing wrong," he added.

He said the fact that whether the disputed structure was a temple or a mosque can only be decided on the basis as to who had been worshipping there and contended that the idols are still there.

"Inner courtyard or outer courtyard is not relevant. We say that whole area is Janambhoomi," he said.

Parasaran will continue with the arguments on Thursday.

Background

The top court is hearing 14 appeals filed 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.

The Akhara has been seeking management and proprietary rights over the disputed site on various grounds including that it was under its possession since time immemorial and it has the status of 'shebaitship' of the deity.

(Edited for clarity)