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..This week, hearings will continue until 5 pm until Thursday..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Hearing commences, Jilani continuing his arguments.Jilani says Sunni Waqf Board does not accept that Ram chabutra is birth place of Ram. “Our stance is that it is their belief and we are not taking any steps in that regard after an observation to that effect by a District Judge”, Jilani.Jilani relying on gazetteers to buttress the case that there was no worship by Hindus in the disputed structure.Jilani refers to Report of 1862 which cites another temple as Janmasthan temple.As per the report, Ramkot fort has a place called Janmasthan which is described as birth place of Lord Ram, submits Jilani.The Janmasthan in Ramkot marks the place where Lord Ram was born, Jilani.Now Jilani referring to document as per which a place called Ram Chabutra which is a raised plarform more than 60 feet away from central dome of the disputed structure, ia being worshipped as place where Lord Ram was born.So this is in line with what you accepted yesterday, Justice Bobde to Jilani.This is their (Hindus’) belief, responds Jilani.Justice Ashok Bhushan quizzing Jilani on the oral evidence regarding janmasthan being at the disputed site. “Your Lordships should not pick one or two lines from 100s of pages of testimonies but should examine the testimony as a whole”, Jilani.This belief that place of birth was below the middle dome was not there till 1989, none of the suits filed from 1950 to 1989 make such a claim, Jilani.Is there any evidence that after mosque was built and before 1855, Hindus wanted to worship inside the boundary wall and Muslims opposed it? Justice SA Bobde to Jilani; No, Hindus started asserting their right in the outside portion around 1865, Jilani. Jilani concludes his arguments. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora commences arguments. She will deal with the ASI report.When Mahant Raghubar Das filed suit for construction of temple, he wanted it to be built at Ram Chabutra and not at the spot where mosque was, Meenakshi Arora.I am on the nature of evidence that we are dealing with in a title suit, Meenakshi Arora.If in 1863, a court took a view denying permission to build temple on the ground that it is wise not to alter status quo after 350 years, then can we, 500 years later, allow claim to title based on oral evidence and gazetteers etc, asks Meenakshi Arora.Archeology is more in the nature of social science; It is not like Physics, Chemistry etc. It can use technology like carbon dating etc but it has not been done, Meenakshi Arora.If you are saying it is vague and not exact, then it cannot be called a science, Justice Bobde disputing Meenakshi Arora. Meenakshi Arora says Archeology is not natural science like Physics, Chemistry, so it is not precise.Archeology does not provide a verifiable conclusion. Archeologist makes an inference, Meenakshi Arora.Even if ASI report is considered expert evidence, it has to be tested on the plank of Section 45 of Evidence Act, Meenakshi Arora.ASI report has errors and contraditctions. It is the opinion of Archeologist. It is evidence but a weak kind of evidence, Meenakshi Arora.ASI report has errors and contraditctions. It is the opinion of Archeologist. It is evidence but a weak kind of evidence, Meenakshi Arora.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch updates.Bench assembles, hearing resumes.ASI report is an opinion have to be treated on that basis, Meenakshi Arora.There is a summary of the report upon which High Court relies upon but there is none to which the same is attributed to, Meenakshi Arora.Meenakshi Arora tracing the list of events leading upto the ASI excavation and report.There is no chapter on bones in the ASI report, which is unusual, Meenakshi Arora.The High Court puts Tojo Vikas report and ASI report together to arrive at its conclusion which could not have been done, Meenakshi Arora.The ASI report does not conclude that any structure was demolished to build the mosque. The issue was referred specifically to ASI but ASI report is silent on the same, Meenakshi Arora.If ASI is not able to show that there was demolition and a mosque came up at that place where there was no demolition, then what is the basis of their suit, Meenakshi Arora.In Somnath, there was material to show that the particular temple was demolished. There is nothing like that in Ayodhya, Meenakshi Arora.Justice DY Chandrachud asks whether demolition needs to be proved and is not sufficient to show that there was a structure underneath the mosque.Meenakshi Arora says that if a structure crumbles, and title holder does nothing to restore it, then if somebody else builds something on that land many years later when the land was lying unused and barren, claim cannot be raised against it.It is not even their case that temple was there. They have to show some evidence about the existence of temple. Their evidence is a traveller’s writing of 17th century about something which somebody told him, Meenakshi Arora.Justice SA Bobde says demolition can be inferred.Meenakshi Arora says inferences are possible conversely also. So the inferences have to be balanced.Demolition is an important aspect of their suit and that demolition has not come in the ASI report, Meenakshi Arora.The summary of ASI report has not been attributed to or signed by any member of the ASI team, Meenakshi Arora.Are you saying somebody else interpolated the summary to the report? Justice SA Bobde. No, I am not saying that, Meenakshi Arora. You did not raise your objection by requesting permission to examine ASI team when matter was in High Court, Justice DY Chandrachud.Meenakshi Arora pointing out that the objection regarding summary was taken before the High Court but it was not considered by the High Court.Justice Bobde persisting with his query on how the objection to the summary was not done in the proper manner and whether the same can now be done before appellate court.Justice Chandrachud also says that the objection to the summary of ASI report was not taken as per CPC.Can we say that you have accepted the ASI report, asks Justice S Abdul Nazeer. Not at all, Meenakshi Arora. Every chapter in the ASI report has reference to the person who has authored it except the summary, Meenakshi Arora.Due to Order VI Rule 10, the report becomes part of the record by operation of law. You had the right to examine the ASI to seek exclusion of the report from the records but you did not do it, CJI Ranjan Gogoi.Meenakshi Arora now making arguments on stratification of soil and technicalties of excavation.Mosque has been in existence since 1528, even the travelogues recoed that. Assuming without accepting that what is under the mosque is a temple, it still does not prove demolition, Meenakshi Arora.Demolition of temple can only be inferred and need not be proved, says Justice SA Bobde. Then there should be some material to support that inference, Meenakshi Arora.You are asking us to sit in judgment over something which should have been decided at trial stage. You had your remedies which you did not avail. All that you say today should have been told to Commissioner, CJI Ranjan Gogoi to Meenakshi Arora.Judgment of Justice Agarwal draw inferences which are beyond the report. I can also show that in one chapter of report something is stated and in another chapter something different is stated, Meenakshi Arora.The report suffers from palpable, apparent inconsistencies, Meenakshi Arora.None of these objections which you are raising in first appeal here were raised by you in the suit, CJI Ranjan Gogoi; I have My Lord, Meenakshi Arora.Bench rises for the day..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. Read an account of Day 29 here. An account of Day 30 can 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..This week, hearings will continue until 5 pm until Thursday..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Hearing commences, Jilani continuing his arguments.Jilani says Sunni Waqf Board does not accept that Ram chabutra is birth place of Ram. “Our stance is that it is their belief and we are not taking any steps in that regard after an observation to that effect by a District Judge”, Jilani.Jilani relying on gazetteers to buttress the case that there was no worship by Hindus in the disputed structure.Jilani refers to Report of 1862 which cites another temple as Janmasthan temple.As per the report, Ramkot fort has a place called Janmasthan which is described as birth place of Lord Ram, submits Jilani.The Janmasthan in Ramkot marks the place where Lord Ram was born, Jilani.Now Jilani referring to document as per which a place called Ram Chabutra which is a raised plarform more than 60 feet away from central dome of the disputed structure, ia being worshipped as place where Lord Ram was born.So this is in line with what you accepted yesterday, Justice Bobde to Jilani.This is their (Hindus’) belief, responds Jilani.Justice Ashok Bhushan quizzing Jilani on the oral evidence regarding janmasthan being at the disputed site. “Your Lordships should not pick one or two lines from 100s of pages of testimonies but should examine the testimony as a whole”, Jilani.This belief that place of birth was below the middle dome was not there till 1989, none of the suits filed from 1950 to 1989 make such a claim, Jilani.Is there any evidence that after mosque was built and before 1855, Hindus wanted to worship inside the boundary wall and Muslims opposed it? Justice SA Bobde to Jilani; No, Hindus started asserting their right in the outside portion around 1865, Jilani. Jilani concludes his arguments. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora commences arguments. She will deal with the ASI report.When Mahant Raghubar Das filed suit for construction of temple, he wanted it to be built at Ram Chabutra and not at the spot where mosque was, Meenakshi Arora.I am on the nature of evidence that we are dealing with in a title suit, Meenakshi Arora.If in 1863, a court took a view denying permission to build temple on the ground that it is wise not to alter status quo after 350 years, then can we, 500 years later, allow claim to title based on oral evidence and gazetteers etc, asks Meenakshi Arora.Archeology is more in the nature of social science; It is not like Physics, Chemistry etc. It can use technology like carbon dating etc but it has not been done, Meenakshi Arora.If you are saying it is vague and not exact, then it cannot be called a science, Justice Bobde disputing Meenakshi Arora. Meenakshi Arora says Archeology is not natural science like Physics, Chemistry, so it is not precise.Archeology does not provide a verifiable conclusion. Archeologist makes an inference, Meenakshi Arora.Even if ASI report is considered expert evidence, it has to be tested on the plank of Section 45 of Evidence Act, Meenakshi Arora.ASI report has errors and contraditctions. It is the opinion of Archeologist. It is evidence but a weak kind of evidence, Meenakshi Arora.ASI report has errors and contraditctions. It is the opinion of Archeologist. It is evidence but a weak kind of evidence, Meenakshi Arora.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch updates.Bench assembles, hearing resumes.ASI report is an opinion have to be treated on that basis, Meenakshi Arora.There is a summary of the report upon which High Court relies upon but there is none to which the same is attributed to, Meenakshi Arora.Meenakshi Arora tracing the list of events leading upto the ASI excavation and report.There is no chapter on bones in the ASI report, which is unusual, Meenakshi Arora.The High Court puts Tojo Vikas report and ASI report together to arrive at its conclusion which could not have been done, Meenakshi Arora.The ASI report does not conclude that any structure was demolished to build the mosque. The issue was referred specifically to ASI but ASI report is silent on the same, Meenakshi Arora.If ASI is not able to show that there was demolition and a mosque came up at that place where there was no demolition, then what is the basis of their suit, Meenakshi Arora.In Somnath, there was material to show that the particular temple was demolished. There is nothing like that in Ayodhya, Meenakshi Arora.Justice DY Chandrachud asks whether demolition needs to be proved and is not sufficient to show that there was a structure underneath the mosque.Meenakshi Arora says that if a structure crumbles, and title holder does nothing to restore it, then if somebody else builds something on that land many years later when the land was lying unused and barren, claim cannot be raised against it.It is not even their case that temple was there. They have to show some evidence about the existence of temple. Their evidence is a traveller’s writing of 17th century about something which somebody told him, Meenakshi Arora.Justice SA Bobde says demolition can be inferred.Meenakshi Arora says inferences are possible conversely also. So the inferences have to be balanced.Demolition is an important aspect of their suit and that demolition has not come in the ASI report, Meenakshi Arora.The summary of ASI report has not been attributed to or signed by any member of the ASI team, Meenakshi Arora.Are you saying somebody else interpolated the summary to the report? Justice SA Bobde. No, I am not saying that, Meenakshi Arora. You did not raise your objection by requesting permission to examine ASI team when matter was in High Court, Justice DY Chandrachud.Meenakshi Arora pointing out that the objection regarding summary was taken before the High Court but it was not considered by the High Court.Justice Bobde persisting with his query on how the objection to the summary was not done in the proper manner and whether the same can now be done before appellate court.Justice Chandrachud also says that the objection to the summary of ASI report was not taken as per CPC.Can we say that you have accepted the ASI report, asks Justice S Abdul Nazeer. Not at all, Meenakshi Arora. Every chapter in the ASI report has reference to the person who has authored it except the summary, Meenakshi Arora.Due to Order VI Rule 10, the report becomes part of the record by operation of law. You had the right to examine the ASI to seek exclusion of the report from the records but you did not do it, CJI Ranjan Gogoi.Meenakshi Arora now making arguments on stratification of soil and technicalties of excavation.Mosque has been in existence since 1528, even the travelogues recoed that. Assuming without accepting that what is under the mosque is a temple, it still does not prove demolition, Meenakshi Arora.Demolition of temple can only be inferred and need not be proved, says Justice SA Bobde. Then there should be some material to support that inference, Meenakshi Arora.You are asking us to sit in judgment over something which should have been decided at trial stage. You had your remedies which you did not avail. All that you say today should have been told to Commissioner, CJI Ranjan Gogoi to Meenakshi Arora.Judgment of Justice Agarwal draw inferences which are beyond the report. I can also show that in one chapter of report something is stated and in another chapter something different is stated, Meenakshi Arora.The report suffers from palpable, apparent inconsistencies, Meenakshi Arora.None of these objections which you are raising in first appeal here were raised by you in the suit, CJI Ranjan Gogoi; I have My Lord, Meenakshi Arora.Bench rises for the day..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. Read an account of Day 29 here. An account of Day 30 can 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 31]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F09%2FAyodhya-dispute-23.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
