On 37th day of the hearing in Ayodhya title suit case, the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court wrapped up arguments in three out of the four suits, forming a prima facie view that the Muslim side claim of the structure underneath the disputed site being an idgah may not be true, but the Hindu side's claim of the same being a temple needs to be supported with "core evidence".
For the Hindu side, senior advocates CS Vaidyanathan and PS Narasimha blasted the Muslim side claim that the structure found beneath the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) was an idgah. Vaidyanathan presented archaeological evidence to show pillar bases present on one layer with perpendicular wall-like structures joined to it at various points giving rise to an inference of there being rooms within the structure.
Vaidyanathan said, "That there was a structure beneath has been proved beyond doubt in the excavation. This has defeated the claim of Muslims that there was no structure underneath. Next they claimed the wall could be an Idgah wall. Their theory is demolished by the presence of 46 pillar bases."
The bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi told the Hindu side lawyers, "It may not be an idgah, but could that structure not be a Buddhist vihara. The burden is on you to show evidence. Faith and belief of Hindus is based on practice of believers. But we are in an area of core evidence to show that the structure was a temple."
Vaidyanathan explained that Ayodhya being Ram's birthplace and the palace of King Dasharath (father of Lord Ram) is not disputed by Muslims. This has not been a place of significance for Buddhists, he added. Advocate Narasimha read from the Skanda Purana to show Hindus have to visit Ayodhya to attain moksha (salvation). He said that the archaeological evidence must be read in the context of Hindu religious texts and travelogues which describe Ayodhya as the place where the ruins of Lord Ram's castle were found and which has been a place of pilgrimage of worshippers of Lord Ram.
After the Hindu side concluded its response, the Nirmohi Akhara began arguments. On being told to concise arguments to two hours, senior advocate Sushil K Jain likened the hearing to a "T20 cricket match". This drew the ire of the Court which said, "You have argued your suit for over four days like a test match." The Court said that a two-judge bench was enough to decide this case but realising the sensitivity and importance attached to the issue, a five-judge bench was formed and hence calling it a "constitution bench" would not be proper. The Muslim side will begin arguments on its suit on Friday.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Ranjan Gogoi")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}