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:.Supreme Court asking parties how to conclude arguments before Oct 18. CJI Ranjan Gogoi says matter has to be concluded by Oct 18 and won’t be heard beyond that.Rajeev Dhavan now responding to the issue of whether Order XXVI, Rule 10 can be used to preclude against Sunni Waqf Board from making objections to ASI report.Rajeev Dhavan refers to 1976 amendment to Section 75 of CPC. Before that there was no power for scientific or technical investigation.As per the first part of Rule 10 of Order XXVI, the report of the commissioner shall be evidence and form part of the record, Rajeev Dhavan. However, there is a second part to Rule 10.As per the second part of Rule 10(2), any of the parties may with the permission of the court examine the Commissioner, Rajeev Dhavan.But is it a pre-requisite that a party should follow second part of Rule 10(2) in order to raise objections against Commissioner’s report in appeal particularly when objections were raised in trial Court might have to decide that aspect of law, Dhavan.We can’t discredit without evidence being led, Justice Chandrachud; Rajeev Dhavan responds: “Have I forfeited my right to reply due to Rule 10(2)? 10(2) is not mandatory.”If I have led expert evidence, then whatever I have led will be decided at the final stage without cross examination, Dhavan. Meenakshi Arora now takes over from Dhavan. Meenakshi Arora now going through the contents of the ASI report.Carbon dating can be used for stratifcation. But since ASI does not use the bones, there was no carbon dating, Arora.They go on to determine how periods have to be determined: Period 1 – 6th to 3rd century BC; Period 2 – Sunga (2nd century BC to 1st century BC); Period 3 – Kushan (1st to 3rd century AD); Period 4 – Gupta (4th to 6th century AD), Arora.You show us what was the finding immediately below, CJI Ranjan Gogoi; The issue is a massive wall and pillar bases which are supposed to have rested a massive structure. The relevant period is medieval and early medieval period, Meenakshi Arora. The massive structure is said to have been built in 12th century AD. The massive structure is not from Gupta period, Meenakshi Arora.For mosque, ASI refers to it as disputed structure while for Ram Chabutra which they refer to as shrine. I had raised objections to this, Meenakshi Arora.It is my case that Wall no. 16 and 17 could have been part of Eidgah mosque. Wall faces west, like any Eidgah. Why should there be an inference that such a wall is part of temple? Meenakshi Arora.Why did you not say these in your pleadings? asks Justice Ashok Bhushan.Our case was the mosque was built on vacant land since wall came to light much later after suit was filed. My current argument is only based on report, that if one inference is possible the other is equally possible, Meenakshi Arora.The report itself reflects the pillar bases at different levels. If the pillar bases were not from one single period as stated in the report, then it could not have been part of a one massive contiguous structure as inferred, Meenakshi Arora.How could there have been one massive structure as inferred by ASI when pillar bases are at different levels, asks Meenaksi Arora.Where in the report does ASI say that the massive structure stood on these pillars, asks Justice SA Bobde.Page 80, says Meenakshi Arora reading out from ASI report. Arora also refers to the summary of the ASI report to buttress her arguments.The floors referred to is not a multi storeyed building but floors which have gone underground in successive periods with new structure coming up over it, Meenakshi Arora.Where is the statement that 4 pillar bases were from one period and other 46 pillar bases were from another period, asks Justice SA Bobde; Meenakshi Arora point to page 81 of ASI report.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.Bench assembles.Requests being made by various parties to make oral arguments. “Today is the 32nd day of the hearing. You go on making arguments till my last working day”, CJI Ranjan Gogoi expressing his displeasure.Meenakshi Arora resumes her arguments. Cannot conjecturise that the wall came from one massive structure resting on pillars at different levels from different periods, Meenakshi Arora.This is not a single building where one floor is constructed on top of another. These are different buildings built during different periods, Meenakshi Arora.Meenakshi Arora places reliance on Section 45 of CPC to contend that ASI report is weak cannot be accepted till it is substantiated.Justice Ashok Bhushan questioning Arora’s submissions. Says that the buildings constructed back then might have its shortcomings, they cannot be compared modern engineering benchmarks. You cannot say this pillar is 2.6 inches lesser than one.The High Court has failed to take note of the statements made by Hindu parties witnesses during cross examination which are in my favour, Meenakshi Arora.Only pillar bases have been found, not even a single pillar has been found in conjunction with 85 pillar bases. Pillar bases are not in alignment, Meenakshi Arora.All pillar bases are of different shapes and sizes, some are rectangular, some circular, some irregular. The difference in sizes of pilllar bases is also humongous, says Meenakshi Arora.As per the report, a circular shrine was found beneath the pillar bases. How can the shrine be below pillar bases? Or was there a temple below the temple. The shrine is explained away as a subsidiary shrine, Meenakshi Arora.These pillars are not load bearing. They are made out of brickbats and cannot take load of a huge building superstructure. They can only bear load of a tiled roof, Meenakshi Arora.Lime surkhi has been used in the structure. The temple is said to have been built before lime surkhi came to be used, Meenkashi Arora.“Are you excluding possibility of a temple because of use of lime surkhi”, SA Bobde J.Justice S Abdul Nazeer asks about absence of structures usually present at central portion of Eidgah mosque.The period attributed to circular shrine is 7th to 10th century AD which is before the ASI’s claim of construction of temple which is in 12th century AD. Then how can they claim it is a subsidiary shrine, asks Meenakshi Arora.The inference that is drawn is there is a circular structure and there is a small parnala and hence it was a shrine of Lord Shiva. My submission is one it is too old, and two, it was too small to carry out any worship, Meenakshi Arora submits.Justice Bobde disputes arguments by Meenakshi Arora. “This need not be pranala”, Bobde J looking at the photo. “It is the case of ASI that it is” Meenakshi Arora. “ASI is not authority for everything”, Bobde J. “I rest my case”, Arora. Bench rises for short break. Meenakshi Arora objects to the use of the word “divine” in ASI report.Bench maintains that all these objections should have been put to the expert during trial. “He might have given you an answer”, CJI Ranjan Gogoi.Meenakshi Arora on various designs and other recoveries from the site, which she argues could be attributed to Jainism or Buddhism and not just Hinduism.Glaring inconsistencies in the ASI report. It does not ascribe periodisation correctly. Artefact attributed to Mughal period at one place is attributed to another period in the report. I have given a list of nine such artefacts, Meenakshi Arora.Pottery can be dated. ASI told in its interim report that it will do thermoluminescence of the same. But it does not do it, Meenakshi Arora.Assurance had also been given by ASI that it will do carbon dating and thermoluminesence of all the animal bones and store the bones, but they failed to do so, 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. and and account of Day 31 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..This week, hearings will continue until 5 pm until Thursday..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Supreme Court asking parties how to conclude arguments before Oct 18. CJI Ranjan Gogoi says matter has to be concluded by Oct 18 and won’t be heard beyond that.Rajeev Dhavan now responding to the issue of whether Order XXVI, Rule 10 can be used to preclude against Sunni Waqf Board from making objections to ASI report.Rajeev Dhavan refers to 1976 amendment to Section 75 of CPC. Before that there was no power for scientific or technical investigation.As per the first part of Rule 10 of Order XXVI, the report of the commissioner shall be evidence and form part of the record, Rajeev Dhavan. However, there is a second part to Rule 10.As per the second part of Rule 10(2), any of the parties may with the permission of the court examine the Commissioner, Rajeev Dhavan.But is it a pre-requisite that a party should follow second part of Rule 10(2) in order to raise objections against Commissioner’s report in appeal particularly when objections were raised in trial Court might have to decide that aspect of law, Dhavan.We can’t discredit without evidence being led, Justice Chandrachud; Rajeev Dhavan responds: “Have I forfeited my right to reply due to Rule 10(2)? 10(2) is not mandatory.”If I have led expert evidence, then whatever I have led will be decided at the final stage without cross examination, Dhavan. Meenakshi Arora now takes over from Dhavan. Meenakshi Arora now going through the contents of the ASI report.Carbon dating can be used for stratifcation. But since ASI does not use the bones, there was no carbon dating, Arora.They go on to determine how periods have to be determined: Period 1 – 6th to 3rd century BC; Period 2 – Sunga (2nd century BC to 1st century BC); Period 3 – Kushan (1st to 3rd century AD); Period 4 – Gupta (4th to 6th century AD), Arora.You show us what was the finding immediately below, CJI Ranjan Gogoi; The issue is a massive wall and pillar bases which are supposed to have rested a massive structure. The relevant period is medieval and early medieval period, Meenakshi Arora. The massive structure is said to have been built in 12th century AD. The massive structure is not from Gupta period, Meenakshi Arora.For mosque, ASI refers to it as disputed structure while for Ram Chabutra which they refer to as shrine. I had raised objections to this, Meenakshi Arora.It is my case that Wall no. 16 and 17 could have been part of Eidgah mosque. Wall faces west, like any Eidgah. Why should there be an inference that such a wall is part of temple? Meenakshi Arora.Why did you not say these in your pleadings? asks Justice Ashok Bhushan.Our case was the mosque was built on vacant land since wall came to light much later after suit was filed. My current argument is only based on report, that if one inference is possible the other is equally possible, Meenakshi Arora.The report itself reflects the pillar bases at different levels. If the pillar bases were not from one single period as stated in the report, then it could not have been part of a one massive contiguous structure as inferred, Meenakshi Arora.How could there have been one massive structure as inferred by ASI when pillar bases are at different levels, asks Meenaksi Arora.Where in the report does ASI say that the massive structure stood on these pillars, asks Justice SA Bobde.Page 80, says Meenakshi Arora reading out from ASI report. Arora also refers to the summary of the ASI report to buttress her arguments.The floors referred to is not a multi storeyed building but floors which have gone underground in successive periods with new structure coming up over it, Meenakshi Arora.Where is the statement that 4 pillar bases were from one period and other 46 pillar bases were from another period, asks Justice SA Bobde; Meenakshi Arora point to page 81 of ASI report.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.Bench assembles.Requests being made by various parties to make oral arguments. “Today is the 32nd day of the hearing. You go on making arguments till my last working day”, CJI Ranjan Gogoi expressing his displeasure.Meenakshi Arora resumes her arguments. Cannot conjecturise that the wall came from one massive structure resting on pillars at different levels from different periods, Meenakshi Arora.This is not a single building where one floor is constructed on top of another. These are different buildings built during different periods, Meenakshi Arora.Meenakshi Arora places reliance on Section 45 of CPC to contend that ASI report is weak cannot be accepted till it is substantiated.Justice Ashok Bhushan questioning Arora’s submissions. Says that the buildings constructed back then might have its shortcomings, they cannot be compared modern engineering benchmarks. You cannot say this pillar is 2.6 inches lesser than one.The High Court has failed to take note of the statements made by Hindu parties witnesses during cross examination which are in my favour, Meenakshi Arora.Only pillar bases have been found, not even a single pillar has been found in conjunction with 85 pillar bases. Pillar bases are not in alignment, Meenakshi Arora.All pillar bases are of different shapes and sizes, some are rectangular, some circular, some irregular. The difference in sizes of pilllar bases is also humongous, says Meenakshi Arora.As per the report, a circular shrine was found beneath the pillar bases. How can the shrine be below pillar bases? Or was there a temple below the temple. The shrine is explained away as a subsidiary shrine, Meenakshi Arora.These pillars are not load bearing. They are made out of brickbats and cannot take load of a huge building superstructure. They can only bear load of a tiled roof, Meenakshi Arora.Lime surkhi has been used in the structure. The temple is said to have been built before lime surkhi came to be used, Meenkashi Arora.“Are you excluding possibility of a temple because of use of lime surkhi”, SA Bobde J.Justice S Abdul Nazeer asks about absence of structures usually present at central portion of Eidgah mosque.The period attributed to circular shrine is 7th to 10th century AD which is before the ASI’s claim of construction of temple which is in 12th century AD. Then how can they claim it is a subsidiary shrine, asks Meenakshi Arora.The inference that is drawn is there is a circular structure and there is a small parnala and hence it was a shrine of Lord Shiva. My submission is one it is too old, and two, it was too small to carry out any worship, Meenakshi Arora submits.Justice Bobde disputes arguments by Meenakshi Arora. “This need not be pranala”, Bobde J looking at the photo. “It is the case of ASI that it is” Meenakshi Arora. “ASI is not authority for everything”, Bobde J. “I rest my case”, Arora. Bench rises for short break. Meenakshi Arora objects to the use of the word “divine” in ASI report.Bench maintains that all these objections should have been put to the expert during trial. “He might have given you an answer”, CJI Ranjan Gogoi.Meenakshi Arora on various designs and other recoveries from the site, which she argues could be attributed to Jainism or Buddhism and not just Hinduism.Glaring inconsistencies in the ASI report. It does not ascribe periodisation correctly. Artefact attributed to Mughal period at one place is attributed to another period in the report. I have given a list of nine such artefacts, Meenakshi Arora.Pottery can be dated. ASI told in its interim report that it will do thermoluminescence of the same. But it does not do it, Meenakshi Arora.Assurance had also been given by ASI that it will do carbon dating and thermoluminesence of all the animal bones and store the bones, but they failed to do so, 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. and and account of Day 31 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 32]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F08%2FAyodhya-dispute-13.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
