Ayodhya Case: SC Reserves Order, to Conduct Closed-door Proceedings Today on Mediation Panel Report
A
five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi,
granted three days to contesting parties to file written notes on “moulding of
relief” or narrowing down the issues on which the court is required to
adjudicate.
New Delhi: The
Supreme Court on Wednesday concluded the daily hearings in
the politically sensitive case of the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute
in Ayodhya and reserved its judgement. The bench heard for 40 days the
arguments in the decades-old temple-mosque dispute — the second longest
proceedings in its history.
A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of
India Ranjan Gogoi, granted three days to contesting parties to file written
notes on “moulding of relief” or narrowing down the issues on which the court
is required to adjudicate. The other members of the bench are Justices SA
Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and SA Nazeer.
The Supreme Court later in the day issued a notice saying the bench will sit in chambers,
where parties involved are not allowed, to conduct proceedings on the report of
the mediation panel on Thursday.
The concluding day of the
marathon hearing during which CJI Gogoi observed "enough is enough"
was marked by high drama when Rajeev Dhavan, a senior counsel for the Muslim
parties, tore a pictorial map provided
by the Hindu Mahasabha purportedly showing the exact birth place of Ram in
Ayodhya.The high voltage hearing in
the dispute involving 2.77 acres of land is the second longest after the
landmark Keshvanand Bharti case in 1973 during which the proceedings for
propounding the doctrine of basic structure of the Constitution continued for
68 days. The hearing on the validity of Aadhaar scheme lasted for 38 days in
the top court, which came into existence in 1950.
The bench is racing against time since the verdict has to be
delivered before CJI Gogoi demits office on November 17.
Reacting to the development,
the Congress said no mediation panel, government or opposition can solve the
issue and only the Supreme Court's verdict will give it finality and broad
acceptability.
Congress spokesperson Abhishek
Singhvi said reserving the judgement is the "best".
"No mediation panel, no
government, no opposition can solve Ayodhya issue: fractious, divisive and bitter.
Only SC verdict would give finality, quietus and broad acceptability," he
said in a tweet.
High drama in court
The hearing was marked by
heated exchanges between the lawyers of the Hindu and Muslim sides and midway
the issue of settling the dispute through mediation once again cropped up.
The first mediation bid failed to find an amicable resolution
leading to the commencement of day-to-day hearing from August 6. Later, the
panel, which comprised FMI Kallifulla, a former apex court judge, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar,
founder of Art of Living Foundation, and Sriram Panchu, an acclaimed mediator,
was allowed to continue mediation proceedings. The panel was believed to have
submitted its report to the court on Wednesday.
Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim parties, created a flutter
after he took strong objection to senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for a
faction of All India Hindu Mahasabha (AIHM), relying on a site map and books
written by foreign and Indian authors to buttress claims that the central dome
of the now demolished structure was the birthplace of the deity and asked the
bench as to what he should do with it (map).
The bench said he can shred the documents into pieces. Dhavan
then tore the pictorial map in the courtroom.
Hindu parties vehemently sought
from the court the dismissal of the 1961 lawsuit filed by the Sunni Waqf Board
and other Muslim litigants, saying they could not prove that Mughal emperor
Babur created a valid 'wakf' and constructed a temple on vacant land at the
disputed site.
The Constitution bench was told
by senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the Hindu party, that it was
the case of the Muslim side that the mosque in question was built by the state
(Babur) on the land belonging to it, which has not been proved by them.
Besides Vaidyanathan, senior lawyers Ranjit Kumar, Sushil Jain,
Jaideep Gupta, Vikas Singh, PN Mishra, all appearing for various Hindu parties,
responded to the 1961 lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf board and other Muslim
individuals and said the case, seeking title claim over the entire 2.77 acre
disputed land at Ayodhya, be dismissed as being devoid of any merits.
Vaidyanathan said if the Muslim side claimed title over the
disputed land under the doctrine of adverse possession, they will have to
accept that the deity or the temple was the previous real owner.
“They cannot claim benefit of adverse possession. If they claim
so, then they will have to show the ouster of the prior owner that is temple or
the deity in this case," he told the bench.
The Muslims may have several places for offering “namaz” in
Ayodhya but for Hindus, the place of birth of Ram remains the same and that
cannot be changed, he argued, adding that taking into the account of
unshakeable faith and belief of Hindus, the title of the properties be given to
the Hindus.
He further said the arguments
of the Muslim side that the land was dedicated as a 'waqf' on the ground of
being a long user is not sustainable because they did not have the exclusive
possession over the property as Hindus and Muslims both were sitting there.
Vaidyanthan said the plea of
Muslim parties that Mughals, Nawabs of Awadh, and Britishers gave the grants
for the upkeep of the ‘masjid’ did not help their case as it did not prove
their title.
Ranjit Kumar, appearing for
Hind devotee Gopal Singh Visharad, said Muslims have failed to prove their case
and the lawsuit filed by the Sunni Waqf board and others ought to be dismissed
as Visharad and other Hindu devotee have "pre-existing rights to worship"
at the site.
The character of the disputed site cannot be decided on the
basis of the faith of the Muslims, he said, concluding his submissions.
Vikas Singh, representing the All India Hindu Mahasabha,
referred to various aspects of the Allahabad High Court judgement and said
there has been faith and belief for long on the part of Hindus with regard to
the scared nature of the birthplace of Lord Ram.
Singh said the plea of Muslim parties that grants were given by
a Board in 1860 during the British regime to Babri mosque for its upkeep was
untenable as the Board was dissolved by the Government of India Act two years
before in 1858.
He said Hindus kept worshipping at the central dome believing it
to be the birth place of Ram and justified the prayers by Hindus at the iron
railings at the site, submitting that even at Tirupati, devotees are not
allowed to enter into the temple beyond a point.
No comments: