The hearing in the Ayodhya case is progressing at the Supreme Court of India..The Ayodhya case is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer..Hearings had commenced on August 6, with arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. In the following hearings, submissions were also made on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla and the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti. After arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties to the Ayodhya dispute concluded, arguments have commenced on behalf of the Muslim parties to the case..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Bench assembles, hearing resumes. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan continuing his argumentsIf the Janmasthan argument which is based on belief is accepted, can it be done across such huge areas across India?, asks Rajeev Dhavan.The belief should translate into something perceivable like Mount Kailash so that there is a juristic personality which can be created, Rajeev Dhavan.My first argument is their belief is tenuous in that Janmasthan could be a much larger area than the exact spot as they claim.Even if I concede to their belief, then is there any objective aspect to this?, Rajeev Dhavan.Is it necessary for an entity to have divinity so as to make it a juristic personality? asks Justice SA Bobde.Your first claim that belief is tenuous is an evidentiary issue. But your second argument is that belief should be manisfested by way of an object. What exactly is the object you are talking about? Justice DY Chandrachud to Rajeev Dhavan.What is it they have relied upon – well, rivers trees? That is the Vedic concept. Their argument is all these are juristic personalities. Though there is nothing juristic about respecting it, Rajeev Dhavan.The question is if we go back, are we adding an area to the concept of juristic personality? What undermines their argument, however, is their plaint in suit 5, Dhavan.They have argued that all existing structures be demolished at Ram Janmabhoomi and a new Temple be constructed there, Rajeev Dhavan.They just say Ram was born here. None of the contours of the area are mentioned anywhere in the plaint. The suit is thus merely a vehicle to destroy and remove, Rajeev Dhavan.I am giving in to the argument that Ram was born there, but does it make the place a juristic personality? Nobody till 1989 claimed the place as juristic personality, Rajeev Dhavan.Lord Ram has to be respected, no doubt about it, Rajeev Dhavan. If Lord Ram and Allah are not respected, this great nation which has diversity like no other nation will fall apart, Rajeev Dhavan.Answering the question of what objectification is required to make a good claim of juristic personality based on belief, Dhavan says: “Worship is good enough. They have shown belief but not worship.”There has to be some objective manifestation. It cannot be the whole area, Rajeev Dhavan.As far as Shabait is concerned, they are entitled only to the outer area, Rajeev Dhavan.The only thing that can be said is there was prayer at Ram Chabutra, not even the whole area, Rajeev Dhavan.Will parikrama by itself create a title to a particular area? Dhavan proceeding to discuss the issue.Rajeev Dhavan cites testimonies of people who offered parikrama to claim there is no uniformity in the claims on where it was offered.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Session.Just as Your Lordships lifts the veil in corporate matters, I am asking Your Lordships to lift juristic personality, in this case, to find out what exactly is beneath, Rajeev Dhavan.Whether Hindus have acquired title on the basis of adverse possession? There was no idol in the inner area until 1949, Rajeev Dhavan.This has never been an abandoned mosque at any point in time. It might have, at best, been unused for some time; That is their best case, Rajeev Dhavan.Dhavan making submissions on the possession of the disputed place.The substance of the case argued by Parasaran was Section 10 of Limitation Act with which I will deal later, Rajeev Dhavan.Adverse possession requires some hostile possession against the owner of the property. No such hostile possession in this case except that there was an attempt to frighten some Muslims, Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan citing precedents on juristic persons, deity. Now on how Guru Granth Sahib can be a juristic person. Every Guru Granth Sahib not a juristic person unless installed in a Gurudwara. Likewise every idol is not a juristic person, Dhavan.Bench persisiting with questions on the objective manifestation of belief and what constitutes the same. There should be a temple, worship, continuous use or some kind of dedication/ practice that runs with it, Rajeev Dhavan.Something must be there to convert it from a religious place to a personality, Rajeev Dhavan.We filed suit on Dec 18, 1961. They say we were 2 days late. How would limitation start on December 16, 1949? Limitation starts on December 22 or 23, 1949 since that was when they did something to oust us (by placing idols). So cause of action arose then, Dhavan.I dont need to prove that I was in possession on December 17, 18 or 19 since no cause of action arose then, Rajeev Dhavan.Ultimately, whoever the ruler was and whether he violated the Quran or Dharma, the actions will ultimately have to be tested by Constitution of India, Rajeev Dhavan.On right to worship of Muslims and Christians: because the Pope is in the Vatican does not mean Christian does not have right to worship here, Rajeev Dhavan. Hearing concludes for the day, Dhavan to make arguments on suit no. 1 tomorrow.Hearing from 10. 30 am to 5 pm on all days till Thursday this week. On Friday, hearing only till 1 pm..Read an account of Day 1 of the arguments here. Accounts of the arguments made on Days 2 and 3 can be read here and here. Arguments made on Day 5 can be read here..Day 6 arguments can be read here and Day 7 arguments can be read here. Day 8 arguments can be read here. Day 9 arguments can be read here. Day 10 arguments can be read here..An account of day 15 arguments can be read here and an account of day 16 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 17 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 21 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 22 arguments may be read here. Day 24 arguments can be read here. Day 25 arguments may be read here. An account of the arguments that took place on Days 26 and 27 may be read here..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The hearing in the Ayodhya case is progressing at the Supreme Court of India..The Ayodhya case is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer..Hearings had commenced on August 6, with arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. In the following hearings, submissions were also made on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla and the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti. After arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties to the Ayodhya dispute concluded, arguments have commenced on behalf of the Muslim parties to the case..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Bench assembles, hearing resumes. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan continuing his argumentsIf the Janmasthan argument which is based on belief is accepted, can it be done across such huge areas across India?, asks Rajeev Dhavan.The belief should translate into something perceivable like Mount Kailash so that there is a juristic personality which can be created, Rajeev Dhavan.My first argument is their belief is tenuous in that Janmasthan could be a much larger area than the exact spot as they claim.Even if I concede to their belief, then is there any objective aspect to this?, Rajeev Dhavan.Is it necessary for an entity to have divinity so as to make it a juristic personality? asks Justice SA Bobde.Your first claim that belief is tenuous is an evidentiary issue. But your second argument is that belief should be manisfested by way of an object. What exactly is the object you are talking about? Justice DY Chandrachud to Rajeev Dhavan.What is it they have relied upon – well, rivers trees? That is the Vedic concept. Their argument is all these are juristic personalities. Though there is nothing juristic about respecting it, Rajeev Dhavan.The question is if we go back, are we adding an area to the concept of juristic personality? What undermines their argument, however, is their plaint in suit 5, Dhavan.They have argued that all existing structures be demolished at Ram Janmabhoomi and a new Temple be constructed there, Rajeev Dhavan.They just say Ram was born here. None of the contours of the area are mentioned anywhere in the plaint. The suit is thus merely a vehicle to destroy and remove, Rajeev Dhavan.I am giving in to the argument that Ram was born there, but does it make the place a juristic personality? Nobody till 1989 claimed the place as juristic personality, Rajeev Dhavan.Lord Ram has to be respected, no doubt about it, Rajeev Dhavan. If Lord Ram and Allah are not respected, this great nation which has diversity like no other nation will fall apart, Rajeev Dhavan.Answering the question of what objectification is required to make a good claim of juristic personality based on belief, Dhavan says: “Worship is good enough. They have shown belief but not worship.”There has to be some objective manifestation. It cannot be the whole area, Rajeev Dhavan.As far as Shabait is concerned, they are entitled only to the outer area, Rajeev Dhavan.The only thing that can be said is there was prayer at Ram Chabutra, not even the whole area, Rajeev Dhavan.Will parikrama by itself create a title to a particular area? Dhavan proceeding to discuss the issue.Rajeev Dhavan cites testimonies of people who offered parikrama to claim there is no uniformity in the claims on where it was offered.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Session.Just as Your Lordships lifts the veil in corporate matters, I am asking Your Lordships to lift juristic personality, in this case, to find out what exactly is beneath, Rajeev Dhavan.Whether Hindus have acquired title on the basis of adverse possession? There was no idol in the inner area until 1949, Rajeev Dhavan.This has never been an abandoned mosque at any point in time. It might have, at best, been unused for some time; That is their best case, Rajeev Dhavan.Dhavan making submissions on the possession of the disputed place.The substance of the case argued by Parasaran was Section 10 of Limitation Act with which I will deal later, Rajeev Dhavan.Adverse possession requires some hostile possession against the owner of the property. No such hostile possession in this case except that there was an attempt to frighten some Muslims, Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan citing precedents on juristic persons, deity. Now on how Guru Granth Sahib can be a juristic person. Every Guru Granth Sahib not a juristic person unless installed in a Gurudwara. Likewise every idol is not a juristic person, Dhavan.Bench persisiting with questions on the objective manifestation of belief and what constitutes the same. There should be a temple, worship, continuous use or some kind of dedication/ practice that runs with it, Rajeev Dhavan.Something must be there to convert it from a religious place to a personality, Rajeev Dhavan.We filed suit on Dec 18, 1961. They say we were 2 days late. How would limitation start on December 16, 1949? Limitation starts on December 22 or 23, 1949 since that was when they did something to oust us (by placing idols). So cause of action arose then, Dhavan.I dont need to prove that I was in possession on December 17, 18 or 19 since no cause of action arose then, Rajeev Dhavan.Ultimately, whoever the ruler was and whether he violated the Quran or Dharma, the actions will ultimately have to be tested by Constitution of India, Rajeev Dhavan.On right to worship of Muslims and Christians: because the Pope is in the Vatican does not mean Christian does not have right to worship here, Rajeev Dhavan. Hearing concludes for the day, Dhavan to make arguments on suit no. 1 tomorrow.Hearing from 10. 30 am to 5 pm on all days till Thursday this week. On Friday, hearing only till 1 pm..Read an account of Day 1 of the arguments here. Accounts of the arguments made on Days 2 and 3 can be read here and here. Arguments made on Day 5 can be read here..Day 6 arguments can be read here and Day 7 arguments can be read here. Day 8 arguments can be read here. Day 9 arguments can be read here. Day 10 arguments can be read here..An account of day 15 arguments can be read here and an account of day 16 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 17 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 21 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 22 arguments may be read here. Day 24 arguments can be read here. Day 25 arguments may be read here. An account of the arguments that took place on Days 26 and 27 may be read here..Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
![Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 29]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F08%2FAyodhya-dispute-12.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
