Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 21]

Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 21]

Bar & Bench

The hearing in the Ayodhya case is progressing at the Supreme Court of India.

The Ayodhya case is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer.

Hearings had commenced on August 6, with arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. In the following hearings, submissions were also made on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla and the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti. After arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties to the Ayodhya dispute concluded, arguments have commenced on behalf of the Muslim parties to the case.

Read an account of Day 1 of the arguments here. Accounts of the arguments made on Days 2 and 3 can be read here and here. Arguments made on Day 5 can be read here.

Day 6 arguments can be read here and Day 7 arguments can be read here. Day 8 arguments can be read here. Day 9 arguments can be read here. Day 10 arguments can be read here. An account of day 15 arguments can be read here and an account of day 16 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 17 arguments can be read here.

Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:

  • Bench assembles.
  • Senior Advocate Vikas Singh mentions petition by KN Govindacharya relating to recording of proceedings of the case. CJI Gogoi tells that the petition will be listed on September 16.
  • Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan resumes arguments. “Does the suit stand or does it fall? This depends on three submissions that I would be making”, Rajeev Dhavan.
  • The first is the scope of “belonging to”. “Can they say it belongs to them? No. It never belonged to them. That is the difference between a trustee and a Shabait”, Rajeev Dhavan.
  • K Parasaran had submitted that the statute of limitation is a statute of repose. I accept that argument, Rajeev Dhavan.
  • Let us not interpret continuing wrong and possession that it leads to concomitant rights and more concomitant rights, Rajeev Dhavan.
  • Any right that they got in January 1950 dates back to when? They have to establish that they had a pre -existing right. What is their right? What is the right that it constitute a continuous wrong? Rajeev Dhavan.
  • The Magistrate’s order is the continuing wrong, Justice SA Bobde. “According to them yes. But the question Your Lordships should ask is what the continuing wrong of the Magistrate”, Rajeev Dhavan
  • I ask a simple question: “Can the Magistrate be sued?”, Rajeev Dhavan.
  • Can they go and tell Magistrate give it them and till he gives it to them, he owes a duty to them. The Magistrate owes no duty except to the law, Rajeev Dhavan attacking the argument of continuing wrong.
  • A continuing wrong is one in which there is a failure to obey or comply, Rajeev Dhavan citing precedents.
  • Rajeev Dhavan explaining the scope of “omission” as an offence and “continuing wrong”.
  • A recurring wrong gives a fresh cause of action for every wrong.
  • Bench rises for the day.

[Read Order]

Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news