Since the hearing began on Tuesday, the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked all parties to the suit to show documentary and oral evidence in their favour to claim right of title to the land.
The epic battle for title over the disputed Ayodhya site of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid witnessed an interesting day in the Supreme Court after the deity itself – Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman – told the judges that the right to the land must be gathered from the evidence of who worships on that land – Hindus or Muslims.
Appearing for Lord Ram, senior counsel K Parasaran told the apex court that evidence that a deity is born in a particular place is to be derived from the faith of its worshippers and believers.
He said even Muslim parties to the suit have not denied Ayodhya to be the birthplace of Lord Ram before the Allahabad HC as the September 30, 2010 judgment records a finding that Muslims believe the birthplace of Lord Ram is 200 metres from the disputed site.
Since the hearing began on Tuesday, the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked all parties to the suit to show documentary and oral evidence in their favour to claim right of title to the land.
They began with the suit filed by Nirmohi Akhara but despite arguing for seven hours, senior counsel Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, failed to produce the necessary material.
The bench, also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, told Jain to come prepared and allowed him to present his case later in the hearing.
The bench then asked the same of the deity Lord Ram (who filed suit no. 5 in 1989), represented by 92-year-old Parasaran. He told the bench that he has been preparing the case for the past six months.
Citing religious texts and historical incidents, he submitted that Ayodhya personifies Lord Ram and is worshipped as such in the form of Ramlalla, or Lord Ram the child.
Even before the installation of idols or existence of mosque, the place being called the birthplace of Lord Ram has been deified as Janam Sthan (birthplace) of Lord Ram and this alone should decide the course of this case, he said.
The bench asked the lawyer whether he was aware of any such case in the world where the birth of any "god" has been called into question. Justice Bobde cited Lord Jesus Christ, asking whether there has been a case in any court to ascertain his birthplace in Bethlehem. Parasaran said he was not aware of any such case. He said that if Lord Ram is born in Ayodhya, the entire place becomes an object of worship as it will be the place where the deity resides.
For argument's sake, he said that even if it is accepted that a wrong was committed with the placing of idols in the mosque on the night of 22-23 December 1949, it "finished" when the district magistrate ordered on December 29, 1949 attachment of the property in question and appointed a receiver.
The court put up a curious question on whether the idols had been carbon-dated in order to ascertain their age. None of the parties had anticipated this. The court indicated that it would consider all evidence in support of hte claim for title and then examine the correctness of the HC judgment. The hearing will continue on Thursday.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}