Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 8]

Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 8]

Bar & Bench

The hearing in the case relating to the Ayodhya/Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir 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.

The hearing in the case had commenced on August 6, with arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. In the following hearings, apart from the Nirmohi Akhara, submissions were also made on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla.

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.

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

  • Hearing resumes, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan continuing with his submissions for Ram Lalla.
  • The defacto position is a building was demolished and another was constructed in the shape of a mosque. Despite that Hindus continued to visit the place and offer prayers, CS Vaidyanathan placing reliance on judgment of Justice Agarwal of Allahabad High Court.
  • I submit that Artefacts and records clearly point to the fact that Ram Janambhoomi is the birth place of Lord Ram and that sanctity needs to be accorded to that place, CS Vaidyanathan.
  • CS Vaidyanathan placing reliance on a document which says a stone slab was recovered which contained an inscription in Sanskrit from 12th century.
  • CS Vaidyanathan explaining the contents of the text on the stone slab.
  • The verses speak of King Govinda Chandra who ruled Saketa Mandala of which Ayodhya was Capital A big Vishnu temple was built there, the verses say It is my submission that this Vishnu temple is the structure that was excavated by ASI, says Vaidyanathan.
  • There is no challenge to translation of the contents of the slab, the authenticity of the inscription has also not been challenged; Challenge is only to the recovery of the slab (whether it was recovered from the disputed area or not), CS Vaidyanathan.
  • Vaidyanathan showing photographs to prove the spot from where the slab fell off and how a journalist of Panchajanya had seen the same.
  • Vaidyanathan reading out the account given by the journalist from Panchajanya magazine whose deposition is relied upon wrt recovery of the disputed slab.
  • As per the journalist, slab fell out of western wall of the disputed structure. Many slabs were taken away by Kar Sevaks before they were dispersed by the police.
  • Vaidyanathan now taking the court through the cross examination of the journalist from Panchajanya.
  • The journalist in his cross examination said that the slab was fitted in the western wall of southern dome though he could not say where exactly the slab was on the wall, Vaidyanathan.
  • In my submission, neither the cross examination of the journalist nor of Dr. Ramesh will cast any doubt on recovery of the slab from the disputed place, Vaidyanathan.
  • There is nothing to warrant doubting of credibility of the report or inferences drawn by ASI, submits Vaidyanathan.
  • This slab supports the conclusions drawn by ASI that there was a huge temple at this place Ram Janmasthan, Vaidyanathan argues.
  • The disputed structure was put in place either on the ruins of the temple or by pulling down the temple, CS Vaidyanthan.
  • The evidence of a 90-year-old who has seen pilgrims come and go and whose cross examination in this regard has not yet been shaken is proof that the Ayodhya was a place worship for Hindus, CS Vaidyanathan.
  • Vaidyanathan reading out depositions by various witnesses who used to visit Ayodhya and Ram Janmabhoomi.
  • Bench rises for lunch, hearing to resume at 2 pm. Vaidyanathan says he hopes to finish his arguments today.
  • Bench assembles, hearing resumes. Vaidyanathan reading out deposition of OPW 5.
  • OPW 5 Ramnath has stated that Ayodhya is in a festive mood everyday; Thousands of devotees used to come every year for darshan of Lord Ram.
  • OPW 5 has described in detail about his visits to the deity in the disputed structure which was under the custody of Hindus.
  • Discussion now on degree of access which devotees have to the temples. Temples in south india only the priest performing pooja has access to sanctum sanctorum, Justice Ashok Bhushan. That might not be the case in north.
  • Bench asks Vaidyanathan whether witnesses have spoken about Muslims performing Namaz at the disputed site. Vaidyanathan says he will read deposition of Muslim witnesses.
  • What have Hindu witnesses said in this regard, asks Justice SA Bobde.
  • Vaidyanathan reading out deposition of Hindu witnesses regarding performance of Namaz and Parikramas at the disputed site.
  • Vaidyanathan now reading out evidence given by Muslim witnesses.
  • One Muslim witness stated that if mosque was built after demolition of a temple, Muslims will not consider it a mosque.
  • Mosque cannot be built on a forcibly occupied place. One Muslim witness has said that Hindus believe that the Janmasthan is where Lord Ram was born and worship the place, submits Vaidyanathan.
  • Vaidyanathan finishes with depositions of Prosecution witnesses. He now moves on to depositions of Defence witnesses.
  • I have traced the worship and prayers done by Hindus at Ram Janmasthan which have been accepted by Muslim witnesses also. Thousands of pilgrims have been coming there to offer worship, CS Vaidyanathan.
  • The place which is believed by Hindus to be birthplace of Ram is the place where a disputed structure came up. Despite that, Hindus continued to worship there and offer parikramas as is evident from artefacts and oral evidence, Vaidyanathan.
  • Muslim witnesses themselves have attested to various archeological evidences, Vaidyanathan. Vaidyanathan concludes citing oral evidence of witnesses.
  • He will now deal with case laws to buttress his case.
  • Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow. Vaidyanathan might take another one to two hours to complete submissions.
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news