New Delhi: A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi is hearing the contentious Ayodhya land dispute, and considering the religious nature of the case, is now having to contend with a range of questions — some quirky, some historical and some unprecedented in legal history.
As the case winds down to its conclusion after 36 days of arguments — there are a mere 15 hearings left — ThePrint lists some of the unexpected questions that have cropped up during the marathon hearing.
8 August: SC asks whether any court has dealt with the issue of birth of Jesus Christ?
As the Hindu parties continue to make a case that the disputed site was essentially the birthplace of Lord Ram and was a matter of faith, the Supreme Court asked if there were any parallels to the Ayodhya dispute anywhere in the world.
“Has a question of this nature ever arisen in any other court?” Justice S.A. Bobde, the next in line to be the CJI on a seniority basis, asked senior advocate K. Parasaran. “Has any court dealt with, say, the issue of the birth of Lord Jesus Christ?”
Parasaran, representing the deity Ram Lalla, who under Indian law is treated as a perpetual minor, did not have an immediate answer and sought to get back during the closure of arguments.
9 August: Is there anyone from the Raghuvanshi dynasty still residing in Ayodhya?
It might have been hundreds of centuries since Lord Ram walked the earth according to believers, but the court on the fifth day of the hearing to decide on who owns the disputed land “wondered if anyone from the ‘Raghuvanshi dynasty (believed to be descendants of Lord Ram)’ was still living there (at Ayodhya)”.
Little did the bench, also comprising Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer, know that the query would open a Pandora’s box, with a rush of claimants for the ‘divine bloodline’.
There were at least seven claimants, from BJP MP Diya Kumari, a former Jaipur princess, hotelier Arvind Singh Mewar, a member of the former Mewar royal family, to the Karni Sena chief Lokendra Singh Kalvi and Rajasthan minister Pratap Singh Khachariya.
On 7 September, around 2,000 people from 15 districts of Madhya Pradesh, claiming to be of the Raghuvanshi clan, left for Ayodhya to send a message that Lord Rams’s ancestors exist.
13 August: Where is the exact spot of Ram’s birth?
After Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992, the Archaeological Society of India (ASI) did not confirm the presence of a temple under the mosque structure.
The arguments of the Hindus have not only been that there was a temple, which was demolished, but also that the site was where Lord Ram was born.
The court, however, went on to ask Ram Lalla’s counsel which exact spot was regarded as Ram’s birthplace.
Senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan submitted that the birthplace was below the central dome of the Babri Masjid. He added that the three judges of the Allahabad High Court had held that there was a temple at the disputed site.
Referring to the Allahabad HC verdict, Vaidyanathan said that by a 2:1 majority, the three-judge bench had narrowed down the birthplace to a spot under the central dome of the demolished mosque.
One of the judges, Justice Sharma, had, in fact, treated the entire property as Lord Ram’s birthplace, he said.
Vaidyanathan also stated that presence of an idol is not necessary for a place to be regarded as holy in Hinduism. He argued that if there is a sense of reverence — religious efficacy is believed.
14 August: Does the Baburnama mention the Babri Masjid?
The crux of the question comes from the belief that Mughal emperor Babur built the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya in 1528. The Hindus have also been arguing that Babur demolished a temple to build the mosque.
But senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, said that Baburnama (Babur’s memoirs) mentions the Mughal emperor crossing the river to Ayodhya but that some of its pages were missing.
The answer also came through a related question from the bench. “When was it first called Babri Masjid? Is the Baburnama totally silent on this?” the bench asked.
Senior counsel Vaidyanathan pointed out that the Baburnama was silent on this and it led the court to ask, “What is the objective evidence available that Babur directed for its (temple) demolition?”
28 August: Did Babur visit Ayodhya?
As the hearing progressed, senior advocate P.N. Mishra, who appears for the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti, argued that “Babur may not have even visited Ayodhya”. His argument hinged on the fact that a temple was demolished but the mosque was not built by Babur and was just a regular one.
Mishra also referred to Ain-i-Akbari, written by Akbar’s court historian Abu’l Fazl, the Humayun nama and the Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri or memoirs of Jahangir to argue that none of them mention that Babur built the disputed structure.
Mishra went on to state that works by Italian Niccolao Manucci, who is believed to have been a commander of Emperor Aurangzeb, also do not contain any reference to the disputed structure.
30 August: Did Babur dedicate Babri Masjid to Allah?
This question cropped up again when Mishra was arguing that the Allahabad HC, while dividing the disputed land equally among Hindus, Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara, did not take into account whether Babur had indeed constructed the mosque according to Islamic Sharia law.
Mishra said a majority verdict of the HC had said that the Muslim community failed to prove that the Babri Masjid was a mosque built by Babur in 1528. He further argued that there was no forum to decide such problems and that courts could not simply decide to ignore these matters.
The Supreme Court, however, stated that the demand to examine if a 16th-century Mughal emperor had dedicated the Babri Masjid to Allah according to Islamic tenets was “a little problematic”.
3 September: Is the Kaaba in Mecca sculpted or it is self-manifested?
The five-judge bench, while hearing an argument that the birthplace of Lord Ram was a juristic personality (a legal entity having stakes in the case), queried about the origins of the holiest place in Islam, Kaaba in Mecca.
A juristic person in law can hold property and institute litigation.
Justice Bobde sought to know from senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan if the “Kaaba is sculpted or it is swayambhu or self-manifested?”
Dhawan, who is representing the Muslim parties, replied that it is intrinsically divine as Prophet Muhammad said there is one god and only one god.
30 September: Was Babur subject to any law?
As the hearing revolved around whether Emperor Babur committed a sin 500 years ago by constructing a mosque in violation of the Islamic Sharia law, counsel for the Muslim side, advocate Mohammad Nizam Pasha, quoted flagrant violations of the Sharia law committed by Babur himself and stated that Sharia will apply only when the country is governed by Muslim law and not when the sovereign ruler just happens to be a Muslim.
Pasha argued that at the time of building the mosque, Babur did not answer to any higher authority.
While Pasha was elaborating on his arguments, Justice Bobde had asked, “We are not here to see if Babur was a sinner. We are here to see if Babur followed the law on the secular use of property. Was he subject to any law?”
30 September: Why insist Ayodhya land is divine?
The Supreme Court asked the Ayodhya deity’s lawyer why the Hindus insist that the disputed land is divine.
“Why do you insist on divinity (to Ramjanmabhoomi) to establish juristic personality to the land? A ship is a juristic person, but not divine…,” Justice Bobde asked senior advocate K. Parasaran.
Rather than giving a direct answer, Parasaran posed a counter question, “Why not give divinity to the idol also?”
Parasaran also stated that a legal fiction is created for a need. In this case, it is to secure the rights and obligations of the deity.
1 October: Is the spirit of Lord Ram invoked in the janmabhoomi and in the idol?
As Parasaran and Dhawan debated on the worship of God in manifested and unmanifested forms, Justice Ashok Bhushan inquired, “Is the spirit of Lord Ram invoked in the janmabhoomi and in the idol both or is there only one juridical person?”
According to Parasaran, “whether the Lord’s image is carved or whether the idol is movable, it does not matter. Juristic person comes from manifestation of the spirit”.
If indeed there was a temple of such high reverence and belief there had to be a Brahmin Pujari (shebait) and his associates of high lineage managing this temple at the time of its destruction to build the Masjid in its place. Surely if this event did occur , it would have been a terrible trauma for these personages. It certainly would have been recorded not only by them but pujaris of other numerous temples and other residents of Ayodhya. If Lord Ram’s descendants can be found, surely these families can be found and queried. Even our Pandas keep record of generations.
Presence or absence of record of destruction by itself ought to be conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Superstition and the primitive mindset should never be allowed to affect the secular law of the land.
Leave the law made by man to man, as it belongs to man,
and leave matters of God to God.
Once upon a time there was a king named Rama…..
Rama was born in Janakpur …..
Select some mosque in Janakpur as well….
Ram naam japana, paraya maal apana……
After Babri, Mecca has figured !!! Birth of Ram in Mecca’s Kaaba is also a possibility………
Kaaba was a temple having 360 idols namely Laat, Huzza, (Su) Manat etc etc removed and destroyed by prophet………
We have nothing to do with your Arabia. Keep your Arabi things with you which you got from your masters.
Paraya maal apna?? Your green religion belongs to Arabia if exacavations starts happening. Muslins will have to leave all the mosque in India because most are built demolishing temples.
So, you agree your founder was destroying others shrine. Then why you cry if the same happens to you that too when you have built it after demolishing temple.
Valmiki Ramayan is history. It was written by Valmiki during the lifetime of Ram. Creating a myth is Xian conspiracy.
People are too stupid. Don’t know why this is even an issue. Oh yes, because of poverty and stupid religious sheeple. Supreme Court should kick everyone out of Ayodhya and have some development. Forget these stupid mandirs and mosques, bewakoof log
Well said !! Unfortunately religion is the opium of the people of this country, so, sadly, we all know where this is going to end up.
Ramayan is part of mythology, which means it is somewhere between Facts and Fiction , can there ever be a pronouncement on any event in the Ramayana?
Who is to decide what comes in mythology and what does not ? Our historians are marxists with Anti-India bias. Pronouncement of events?? Look at all the places mentioned in Ramayana and even today they exist where people reside, what else do you want?
Of course, of course – not historians, but semi-literate bigots spoon fed by fake social media forwards and random blogs should decide what is mythology and what is history !!