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. Today, rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu deity Ram Lalla are also being made..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Shekhar Naphade resumes his arguments.Naphade argues Mahant is legal representative of Math and Hindus. “Once he says he is Mahant of place of worship, he is legal representative of Math and automatically becomes representatives of Hindu worshippers”Justice Bobde disputes the submission.Law is law. Mahant represents the Math, Naphade.Parties to 1885 suit were representing same persons as in present suits. Title to property claimed by Hindus in 1885 suit same as in present suit. Cause of action was right to construct temple in both cases. Hence constructive res judicata applies, Nahpade.Shekhar Naphade concludes, Advocate Nizam Pasha commences arguments. Nirmohi means without ‘Moh’. Hence, it means without material attachment, submits Nizam Pasha questioning the litigation fought by Nirmohi Akhara contrary to its theological foundation.When Babur performed these actions, he was the sovereign. It was time when Constitution was not in existence. The law was what the sovereign declared to be law. Testing his actions against Quranic law incorrect to assess legality of his actions, Pasha.Quran was not the law recognised by this sovereign at all. It can be used to test his actions to determine whether he was a sinner or not but not legality of his actions, Nizam Pasha.We cannot start by presumption that law of Sharia governs his actions, Pasha. The legal validity of title is determined by law of land. Once title is proved then, the governance of wakf will be based on wakf law.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.What Babur did is far from Haram, it might be Makruh at the most. It does not affect the character of mosque, Nizam Pasha.The idea of mosque in Islam is also as a cultural place where people gather, Nizam Pasha.Nizam Pasha concludes his submissions.Senior Advocate K Parasaran commences rejoinder arguments on behalf of Ram Lalla.Juristic personality has to be seen from the point of view of Hindu law. Unnecessary to turn to Roman law or English law, K Parasaran.Hindu law has grown and evolved from instance to instance by way of judicial interpretation, K Parasaran quoting Justice Vivian Bose in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case. K Parasaran making submissions on the nature of Hindu religion.In the Hindu religion, though the ultimate God is one Supreme being, he is worshipped in different forms in different modes in different temples, K Parasaran.Rajeev Dhavan objects to Parasaran’s submissions citing examples, case laws. “My friend is here on reply to our reply. But his examples are out of context. We could also cite examples but Your Lordships specifically stopped us.”“Now I will have to reply to him. These were not part of evidence”, Dhavan. Parasaran responds to Dhavan; Says Dhavan gave an article to Bench which was not part of evidence. “Give it back My Lord. Dont take it as part of record”, Dhavan retorts.Why are you insisting on divinity as a condition to attribute juristic personality to land/ object? Justice SA Bobde to K Parasaran.Something to which divinity is attributed means it can take the place of the Divine/ God. It is a form which helps to think about God especially for a layperson, K Parasaran.Parasaran quoting Upanishads to argue that while God is shapeless and formless, it is difficult for ordinary worshippers to perceive God in the absence of a form or idol.For ordinary worshippers, in order to be able to conceive of the idea of ‘God’ and concentrate on the deity while offering worship, an idol or image is consecrated and installed in the temple, Parasaran.Attributing juristic personality is for the protection of idol, K Parasaran.Where an idol or image is consecrated and installed in the temple, it represents the physical manifestation of the deity sought to be worshipped, Parasaran.Such an idol or image comes to be recognized as the juristic entity, capable of holding property endowed to deity. However, the object of worship is not the idol itself, but God/ deity/ divinity which is believed to manifest in such idol, K Parasaran.K Parasaran citing precedents explaining the basis of idol worship.The notion of treating an idol as a juristic person is rooted in the faith of the people that the God/deity/ divinity has manifested itself in such an idol and is thus capable of holding movable and immoveable property dedicated to it, K Parasaran.While God / Deity Himself is not a person in law, whatever form He is believed to have manifested Himself in becomes a person in law, submits K Parasaran.Justice Bobde asks K Parasaran whether any precedent exists in which the whole temple including the land has been held to be juristic person and not just idol.In response to question by Justice SA Bobde, Parasaran places reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy v. Commissioner.Bench rises for the day. Rejoinder arguments to be concluded by Thursday. Rajeev Dhavan will start arguments in suit no. 4 on Friday morning..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. An account of Day 32 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 33 arguments can be read here..[Read Order].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. Today, rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu deity Ram Lalla are also being made..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Shekhar Naphade resumes his arguments.Naphade argues Mahant is legal representative of Math and Hindus. “Once he says he is Mahant of place of worship, he is legal representative of Math and automatically becomes representatives of Hindu worshippers”Justice Bobde disputes the submission.Law is law. Mahant represents the Math, Naphade.Parties to 1885 suit were representing same persons as in present suits. Title to property claimed by Hindus in 1885 suit same as in present suit. Cause of action was right to construct temple in both cases. Hence constructive res judicata applies, Nahpade.Shekhar Naphade concludes, Advocate Nizam Pasha commences arguments. Nirmohi means without ‘Moh’. Hence, it means without material attachment, submits Nizam Pasha questioning the litigation fought by Nirmohi Akhara contrary to its theological foundation.When Babur performed these actions, he was the sovereign. It was time when Constitution was not in existence. The law was what the sovereign declared to be law. Testing his actions against Quranic law incorrect to assess legality of his actions, Pasha.Quran was not the law recognised by this sovereign at all. It can be used to test his actions to determine whether he was a sinner or not but not legality of his actions, Nizam Pasha.We cannot start by presumption that law of Sharia governs his actions, Pasha. The legal validity of title is determined by law of land. Once title is proved then, the governance of wakf will be based on wakf law.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.What Babur did is far from Haram, it might be Makruh at the most. It does not affect the character of mosque, Nizam Pasha.The idea of mosque in Islam is also as a cultural place where people gather, Nizam Pasha.Nizam Pasha concludes his submissions.Senior Advocate K Parasaran commences rejoinder arguments on behalf of Ram Lalla.Juristic personality has to be seen from the point of view of Hindu law. Unnecessary to turn to Roman law or English law, K Parasaran.Hindu law has grown and evolved from instance to instance by way of judicial interpretation, K Parasaran quoting Justice Vivian Bose in the Anwar Ali Sarkar case. K Parasaran making submissions on the nature of Hindu religion.In the Hindu religion, though the ultimate God is one Supreme being, he is worshipped in different forms in different modes in different temples, K Parasaran.Rajeev Dhavan objects to Parasaran’s submissions citing examples, case laws. “My friend is here on reply to our reply. But his examples are out of context. We could also cite examples but Your Lordships specifically stopped us.”“Now I will have to reply to him. These were not part of evidence”, Dhavan. Parasaran responds to Dhavan; Says Dhavan gave an article to Bench which was not part of evidence. “Give it back My Lord. Dont take it as part of record”, Dhavan retorts.Why are you insisting on divinity as a condition to attribute juristic personality to land/ object? Justice SA Bobde to K Parasaran.Something to which divinity is attributed means it can take the place of the Divine/ God. It is a form which helps to think about God especially for a layperson, K Parasaran.Parasaran quoting Upanishads to argue that while God is shapeless and formless, it is difficult for ordinary worshippers to perceive God in the absence of a form or idol.For ordinary worshippers, in order to be able to conceive of the idea of ‘God’ and concentrate on the deity while offering worship, an idol or image is consecrated and installed in the temple, Parasaran.Attributing juristic personality is for the protection of idol, K Parasaran.Where an idol or image is consecrated and installed in the temple, it represents the physical manifestation of the deity sought to be worshipped, Parasaran.Such an idol or image comes to be recognized as the juristic entity, capable of holding property endowed to deity. However, the object of worship is not the idol itself, but God/ deity/ divinity which is believed to manifest in such idol, K Parasaran.K Parasaran citing precedents explaining the basis of idol worship.The notion of treating an idol as a juristic person is rooted in the faith of the people that the God/deity/ divinity has manifested itself in such an idol and is thus capable of holding movable and immoveable property dedicated to it, K Parasaran.While God / Deity Himself is not a person in law, whatever form He is believed to have manifested Himself in becomes a person in law, submits K Parasaran.Justice Bobde asks K Parasaran whether any precedent exists in which the whole temple including the land has been held to be juristic person and not just idol.In response to question by Justice SA Bobde, Parasaran places reliance on Supreme Court judgment in Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy v. Commissioner.Bench rises for the day. Rejoinder arguments to be concluded by Thursday. Rajeev Dhavan will start arguments in suit no. 4 on Friday morning..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. An account of Day 32 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 33 arguments can be read here..[Read Order].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 34]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F08%2FAyodhya-dispute-12.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
