- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
In the Ayodhya case hearing in Supreme Court Senior Advocate PN Mishra continued his submissions on day 15 on behalf of Ram Janmasthann Punaruddhar Samiti.
His arguments on day 15 centered around Quran and Hadiths to prove that the disputed structure was not a mosque as per Islam.
He submitted that there is no evidence on who built the mosque – Babur or Aurangzeb.
“There is no mention anywhere in Baburnama about the construction of Babri Masjid”, he said.
He also submitted that a Waqf created on a place which is illegally acquired is not a lawful waqf. Moreover, there is no evidence of Muslims offering prayers at the mosque till 1860, it was argued.
“It is their own position that the structure was open only for 2 to 3 hours every Friday.
As per Islam, if Namaz is not offered at least two times every day while Azaan is being called, it cannot be called a mosque”
Justice Bobde responded to Mishra’s arguments by stating,
“Can you wish away the mosque, the mosque stands or stood there. There was a structure in the shape of a mosque. here is no dispute about that. Whether it was dedicated for the purpose of mosque is arguable. However, that does not take away existence of the structure.”
The Hindu parties are likely to conclude their arguments today.