Ayodhya hearing in Supreme Court: Need to correct 'historical wrong' committed by Babar, says Hindu party

A 'historical wrong' was committed by the victorious emperor Babur by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya which needed to be rectified now, a Hindu party said in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Press Trust of India October 15, 2019 15:43:16 IST
Ayodhya hearing in Supreme Court: Need to correct 'historical wrong' committed by Babar, says Hindu party
  • A 'historical wrong' was committed by the victorious emperor Babur by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya which needed to be rectified now, a Hindu party said in the Supreme Court on Tuesday

  • A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by chief justice Ranjan Gogoi, was told by the former attorney general and senior advocate K Parasaran that Hindus cannot change the birthplace of Lord Ram

  • The bench asked whether Muslims can seek a decree of the declaration with regard to the disputed property even after the demolition of the alleged mosque on 6 December, 1992

New Delhi:  A "historical wrong" was committed by the victorious emperor Babar by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya which needed to be rectified now, a Hindu party said in the Supreme Court on Tuesday in the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

Ayodhya hearing in Supreme Court Need to correct historical wrong committed by Babar says Hindu party

Representational image. PTI

A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by chief justice Ranjan Gogoi, was told by the former attorney general and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for a Hindu party, that there were several mosques in Ayodhya where Muslims can pray but Hindus cannot change the birthplace of Lord Ram.

Parasaran, appearing for Mahant Suresh Das, who is a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf Board and others, said that emperor Babur conquered India and committed a historical wrong by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram by placing himself above the law.

The bench, also comprising justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, asked several questions to Parasaran on legal issues like the law of limitation, the doctrine of adverse possession and questions as to how Muslims are ousted from seeking title over 2.77 acres of disputed land at Ayodhya.

The bench asked whether Muslims can seek a decree of the declaration with regard to the disputed property even after the demolition of the alleged mosque on 6 December, 1992. "They say, once a mosque always a mosque, do you support this, the bench asked Parasaran.

"No. I do not support it. I will say once a temple always a temple," Parasaran replied. The bench said that it has been argued by the Muslim parties that they can seek a decree of declaration for the property even if the building in question was no more in existence.

After the bench asked a volley of questions to Parasaran, the CJI said: "Mr Dhavan are we asking a sufficient number of questions to the Hindu parties now."

The observation assumes significance as senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim parties, had alleged on Monday that questions are asked only from them and not posed to the Hindu side during the hearings in the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

"Your Lordship didn't ask a question to the other side. All the questions have been asked to us only. Of course, we are answering them," Dhavan had said yesterday. The arguments in the Ayodhya land dispute are continuing on the 39th day and will resume after the lunch break.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya is partitioned equally among the three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Updated Date:

Find latest and upcoming tech gadgets online on Tech2 Gadgets. Get technology news, gadgets reviews & ratings. Popular gadgets including laptop, tablet and mobile specifications, features, prices, comparison.

also read

Love jihad laws: State has no business examining religious conversions; it breaches secular tenets, assaults civil liberties
India

Love jihad laws: State has no business examining religious conversions; it breaches secular tenets, assaults civil liberties

It is senseless that we in the 21st century are still dealing with religion as though it was a means to determine one's relationship to the State.

Bail for some, jail for others: Understanding the skewed reasoning of the apex court's judicial process
India

Bail for some, jail for others: Understanding the skewed reasoning of the apex court's judicial process

While it is encouraging that the grant of bail has been prioritised in some cases, a number of other journalists are languishing in prison, with the top court doing little about their plight

SC sets aside Punjab and Haryana HC order dismissing man's plea on grounds of lawyer's absence
India

SC sets aside Punjab and Haryana HC order dismissing man's plea on grounds of lawyer's absence

The apex court said that the high court ought to have appointed an amicus curiae in the absence of counsel, adding that "the liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner".