Twitter
Advertisement

'Allahabad HC erred on Ayodhya, held it to be deity yet divided it': Sr Adv C S Vaidyanathan

The Hindu side led by senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan pointed out this flaw in its appeal as grounds to overturn the HC decision of September 30, 2010.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

A major legal hurdle faces Muslims in the battle for title to the disputed Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid area. On Tuesday, lawyers for Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajmaan (deity of Lord Ram) said that since the Allahabad High Court order had accepted His birthplace to be a deity, dividing it into parts was not possible as it amounted to "demolishing" the deity itself.

The Hindu side led by senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan pointed out this flaw in its appeal as grounds to overturn the HC decision of September 30, 2010. Vaidyanathan said that once the birthplace is held to be a deity and the same has been worshipped as such since time immemorial, mere construction of a mosque in the year 1528 by Emperor Babar would not change the status of the deity or the land under it.

The bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer reasoned that at best it could be a submission that in the worldview of Hindus, as the birthplace of Lord Ram, the site is a deity. At the same time the judges said that Muslims claim they have a place of worship on the same land. The bench said that it would examine all evidence and pleadings of both sides before coming to any conclusion.

The hearing will resume Wednesday. But Vaidyanathan answered the query relying upon the HC judgment. Although the Muslim side claimed before HC that Babar built the mosque on vacant land, two out of three judges trashed it citing the existence of a temple at the site.

The third HC judge agreed on the presence of ruins of a temple. So on title, the HC held that Muslims have no clear title of possession.

There is another theory of adverse possession on which Muslims relied. But even that failed as Hindus never gave up worshipping at the site where the mosque was later constructed, Vaidyanathan submitted. The HC recorded that Friday prayers were last offered at the mosque by local Muslims on December 16, 1949, although regular five-time namaaz ended long back in 1934. As against this, the worship of Hindus continued prior to the mosque construction and later than the period when Muslims ceased to pray.

Now if Muslims have to succeed in their suit, the senior counsel argued, they need to displace the finding that Ram Janma Sthal (birthplace) is not a deity and also that no worship of Lord Ram continued for any period of time in the past.

The bench further asked the Hindu side that the HC held that both Hindus and Muslims were entitled to joint possession. Here, Vaidyanathan explained that joint possession cannot be of deity, which is the property itself but of right to access. However, he added, "once the place is deity, joint possession will amount to destruction and mutilation of deity."

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing for Muslim parties complained that the Hindu side was not relying on evidence and hopping from HC judgment to exhibited reports. The bench assured them that all sides would get equal opportunity to present their case as it was in no hurry.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement