Ayodhya hearing in SC: Lawyers for Hindu parties cite archaeological evidence, religious texts to argue temple existed before mosque
CS Vaidyanathan argued that the excavations proved beyond doubt that there was a structure beneath the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya.
In the hearing on the Ayodhya dispute in the Supreme Court on Thursday, archaeological evidence and religious texts were cited by Hindu parties.
The broad questions addressed were whether a structure beneath the mosque was that of a temple, and whether Hindus believed that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram.
CS Vaidyanathan argued that the excavations proved beyond doubt that there was a structure beneath the Babri Masjid.
In the hearing on the Ayodhya dispute in the Supreme Court on Thursday, archaeological evidence and religious beliefs were cited by Hindu parties to support their case. The broad questions addressed were whether a structure beneath the mosque was that of a temple, and whether Hindus believed that the site was the birthplace of Lord Ram.
CS Vaidyanathan, the lawyer appearing for the deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman,' argued that the excavations proved beyond doubt that there was a structure beneath the Babri Masjid, according to Bar and Bench. He further contended that 46 pillar bases found there belonged to the same structure.
As reported by India Legal, Justice SA Bobde responded to these arguments by asking, "How do you establish that the walls of the pillar bases are of the same period?" To this, Vaidyanathan read out an extract of an ASI report on carbon dating. He also said that he would submit a note on the issue.
Justice DY Chandrachud also posed a query to Vaidyanathan, asking, "Could the features cited to claim that it is a Hindu temple also be present in Buddhist Viharas?" Replying to it, Vaidyanathan said that this was a place of significance for Hindus, and not Buddhists. He contended that it was thus a reasonable inference that the structure was a Hindu temple.
Subsequently, arguments were put forward by senior advocate PS Narasimha, who represented Rajendra Singh, survivor of the original plaintiff in the case Gopal Singh Visharad. Narasimha referred to ancient Hindu texts which refer to the birthplace of Lord Ram. He read out an extract from Skanda Purana, which says that people should visit the birthplace of Lord Ram to attain moksha (salvation).
Narasimha contended, "The mention of the Janmasthaan in the Skanda Purana proves that this is a religious site for my religion."
In the previous hearing, K Parasaran, another lawyer for the deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman' argued that the birthplace of Lord Ram can be construed as a legal person. Parasaran had argued, "One deity can manifest itself in several forms in the same temple...There are many judges and benches but judgment is attributed to Supreme Court."
Day-to-day hearings in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute have been going on since 6 August. Earlier, the Nirmohi Akhara, the representatives of 'Ram Lalla', the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti and the Muslim parties had put forward their arguments. The Hindu parties are now making rejoinder arguments to the contentions made by the Muslim parties.
SC quashes Maharashtra law granting Maratha reservations, says community can't be declared as backward
The top court has struck down the Maharashtra State Reservation for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018
The SCBA Chief, in a letter to Raveena Tandon, said that the oxygen cylinders will be utilized to save the lives of its members and their families who are unable to get admissions in hospitals.
A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah also said that West Bengal's law has failed to include valuable safeguards for homebuyers