Abdul Bari Masoud | Caravan Daily
NEW DELHI — Counsels representing Muslim parties in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case, on Monday, exposed contradiction between the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas and the Ram Lalla Virajman’s claims over the existence of Ram Mandir (temple) before Babri Masjid, which they say was built after demolishing the mandir in Ayodhya.
The Counsels also objected to RSS leader KN Govindacharya’s plea for live broadcast of the court hearing on the title suit dispute.
On the 24th day of hearing in the title suit case in the Supreme Court, the Muslim parties’ counsel and senior advocate, Rajeev Dhavan, objected to the Govindacharya’s petition saying such a process cannot be started “mid-stream”. He said the court should keep in mind that the Ayodhya case is very sensitive. Hence, it’s essential to consult the five-judge constitution bench prior to undertaking any such move.
A five-member Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi is hearing the Ajodhya case from August 6 on a day-to-day basis in order to decide on the long-standing title dispute. Directing the registry to respond to the plea for live-streaming the Ayodhya title dispute hearings, Justice Gogoi said the court would keep this in mind.
Initiating counter arguments against the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas trust, which was formed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), and the deity Ram Lalla’s suits, Dhavan said the whole purpose of the entire plaint has been lost sight of. The VHP had filed the new petition in 1989 with an argument that the hearing of the case was being delayed and in the petition referred to some travelogues in its support of the existence of Ram mandir at Ayodhya.
On both the petitions from the Hindu side, Dhavan said the implications of the plea on behalf of the idol and the plea claiming the Janmasthan have lost the sight of.
“Time and time again, this suit is filed by them (VHP) to stake claim on the entire area, and presented some points from Faizabad Gazetteer,” he said and added that in each of these petitions, they have made contradictory claims. While one petition claimed Babur demolished the mandir, another named Aurangazeb for the demolition of the temple and building of the mosque on the ruins of mandir. Dhavan further argued that the Ram janmabhoomi and moorti (idol) are two different entities and both are independent of each other.
He also pointed out contradiction between the Nirmohi Akhara and the deity Ram Lalla suit. Narrating events relating to demolition of the Babri masjid and its consequences, Dhavan submitted that the Janmasthan is not a juridical person.
Unfortunately, Allahabad High Court plunged into the question of Janmasthan and, here too, the appellants have concentrated on that aspect of belief and Janmabhoomi, Dhavan argued. “I have never seen an invocation of divine in any special leave petition (SLP),” he said while reading out from one of the Hindu parties’ pleas.
To say that only essentiality of Christianity is Vatican and of Islam is Mecca and Medina is to deny Article 25 to everyone other than Hindus, Dhavan submitted and concluded that a practice essential to the local people practicing these religions is essential enough.
The entire appeal makes a distinction between the idol and Ram Janmabhoomi and the distinctness of Janambhoomi is evident in pleadings and appeal, the counsel observed.
“If it is (about) the idol, this case could have been resolved much more easily. If it is Janmabhoomi, then it means all hands should be off the place including that of this court and there can be no legal remedy,” he averred.
Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for All India Muslim Personal Law Board and Jamiat Ulama –i-Hind in the apex court, will continue his argument on Tuesday.