Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 2]

Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 2]

Bar & Bench

The hearing in the case relating to the Ayodhya/Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir case is currently underway at the Supreme Court of India.

The 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 Ayodhya case was referred to a Constitution Bench on January 9 this year. Earlier, a three-judge Bench had  declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

In March this year, the Bench referred the Ayodhya dispute to a mediation panel comprising of former Supreme Court judge Justice FMI Kalifulla, spiritualist Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu.

The day-to-day hearings in the case commenced yesterday, with the first set of arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. The Akhara had filed an impleadment application in April this year, in view of apprehensions that the Central Government is deliberating the release of superfluous land. The Nirmohi Akhara has staked a claim in a part of the land sought to be so returned. Read an account of the arguments made yesterday here.

Live updates of today’s hearing follow:

  • Second round of hearing in the Ayodhya dispute commences at the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain continuing with his submissions for the Nirmohi Akhara. Arguing on whether suits were barred by limitation.
  • Sushil Kumar Jain arguing that suit was within limitation since the cause of action would arise only after final order passed by Magistrate.
  • Rajeev Dhavan objects to Sushil Kumar Jain using SCR for citing judgments. Says he was not given copies of SCR. Says there should be uniformity regarding the source of citations.
  • Your claim for suit being within limitation is based on Articles 47 and 142 and Section 23 of Limitation Act, CJI Ranjan Gogoi. Yes, says Sushil Kumar Jain.
  • Arguments going on regarding when the right to sue accrues to Nirmohi Akhara – whether it accrues on the passing of the decree of attachment or on judgment by the appellate court.
  • Even if Suit no. 3 and 4 are held to be barred by limitation, rights of contesting parties in suit no. 1 have to be adjudicated. Nirmohi Akhara is contesting party to suit no. 1, Sushil Kumar Jain submits placing reliance on Allahabad High Court judgment.
  • Sushil Kumar Jain’s submissions on the aspect of limitation conclude. Now he is arguing on whether Nirmohi Akhara had possession.
  • Bench asking for specific evidence to prove possession by Nirmohi Akhara.
  • How can you prove your right of Shebaitship, Justice DY Chandrachud to Nirmohi Akhara counsel, Sushil Kumar Jain. Bench asks for evidence as Court rises of lunch; hearing to resume after lunch.

Post Lunch Session

  • In the next 2 hours, we would like to see the oral and documentary evidence, CJI Ranjan Gogoi to SK Jain. Show us original documents, Justice DY Chandrachud.
  • Sushil Kumar Jain says documents are quoted in judgment (of High Court). Ok, do it your way, CJI Gogoi
  • Bench makes some further queries, Jain says he will prepare. The bench now says it will hear suit no. 5 and then get back to Jain.
  • Senior Advocate K Parasaran begins submissions for deity Ram Lalla.
  • Parasaran on Limitation; Citing judgments in relation to when cause of action arises.
  • K Parasaran citing historical texts to buttress contention of existence of Ram temple at Ayodya.
  • Faith of millions of worshippers that the particular place was where Ram was born and temple was there, is itself evidence of the same, submits K Parasaran for Ram Lalla.
  • Justice SA Bobde: Whether somebody says, Jesus Christ was born at Bethlehem or some similar question arisen in any court in the world?
  • K Parasaran responds: “I dont know, I’ll check up.”
  • A receiver having possession of property pursuant to a court order cannot be a continuing wrong, K Parasaran.
  • The wrong regarding placing of idols was snapped when court passed judicial order, K Parasaran.
  • Bench rises, hearing to resume tomorrow.
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news