- Apprentice Lawyer
- Legal Jobs
In the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case hearing, the Supreme Court today asked Counsel for Ram Lalla whether an issue relating to birth of Prophets or religious figures has arisen in any court anywhere in the world.
The question was posed by Justice SA Bobde to Senior Advocate K Parasaran.
“Whether somebody, say, Jesus Christ, was born at Bethlehem or not? Has such a question arisen in any court in the world?”, Justice Bobde queried.
Parasaran replied that he is not sure and will have to “check it up”.
The hearing in the case continued in the Supreme Court today with Senior Advocates Sushil Kumar Jain and K Parasaran advancing their arguments.
Jain’s argument in suit no 3 was largely on whether the suit was within the limitation period or not. After he finished his arguments on the aspect of limitation, Jain started with his submissions on the issue of possession of Nirmohi Akhara with respect to Ram Janmabhoomi before it was attached by court order.
The Bench repeatedly asked Jain to furnish documentary proof regarding possession.
“How can you prove your right of Shebaitship”, Justice Chandrachud queried.
The Senior Counsel could not, however, produce documents to the satisfaction of the Bench. The Bench, therefore, allowed him some time to do so and proceeded to hear appeals arising from suit no. 5 filed by Ram Lalla.
K Parasaran representing Ram Lalla argued on historical texts including Valmiki Ramayan that pointed to the birth of Lord Ram at the Janmasthan. Besides, it was his contention that the faith of millions of worshippers that the particular place was where Ram was born was itself evidence of the same.
Justice Bobde then queried,
“Whether somebody, say, Jesus Christ, was born at Bethlehem or not? Has such a question arisen in any court in the world?”
“I don’t know, I will check up”, said Parasaran.
He then argued on how there was no continuing wrong due to the installation of idols. The wrong which happened with the installation of idols got snapped when the interim order was passed by the court.
“A receiver having possession of the property pursuant to a court order cannot be a continuing wrong”, said Parasaran.
The hearing will resume tomorrow.