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 Muslim parties to the Ayodhya dispute had concluded yesterday, rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties had begun yesterday..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Senior Advocate K Parasaran resumes his rejoinder submissions on behalf of Hindu deity Ram Lalla.One deity can manifest itself in several forms in the same temple, K Parasaran says and cites example of Supreme Court itself. There are many judges and Benches but judgment is attributed to Supreme Court, says Parasaran.Rajeev Dhavan objects again, submits that “these are entirely new arguments and not a reply to reply“. Dhavan also says fact situation in other cases cited by Parasaran are different in that there were temples in existence in such cases unlike here.Land itself has been elevated to the status of a juristic entity in instances of charitable endowments, K Parasaran citing judgment in Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao v. Sub Collector and Thayarammal v. Kanakamma.Will it be applicable to every temple in India, SA Bobde J; It has to be decided on a case to case basis, ParasaranYou are saying divine character should be ascribed to bhoomi because of the belief that Avatar was born there. Should be cautious with that argument, Justice SA Bobde.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.Bench assembles, hearing commences.Two juristic entities can coexist in the same precincts – one in the form of the idol and the other in the form of the janmabhoomi. This has been explicitly clarified by the Supreme Court this in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Das, K Parasaran.A consecrated idol is not the only form in which the deity is believed to manifest itself. The deity may be believed to manifest himself in any form – physical or perceived. Such form need not necessarily only be a movable object, Parasaran.K Parasaran responding on contentions regarding Res Judicata.Justice DY Chandrachud asks K Parasaran whether his stance is that the adjudication of 1886 suit would be covered by res judicata under 1882 Code of Civil Procedure and not 1908 Code of Civil Procedure even with respect to suits filed after 1908.Parasaran says yes. Justice Chandrachud not convinced by that argument.Now Rajiv Dhavan interjects to counter that submission of Parasaran. Dhavan says even if 1882 CPC is applied, res judicata will still come into play.“If they do down that road (that 1882 CPC will apply), a lot more will have to be argued”, submits Dhavan.K Parasaran says it is very unfair that Dhavan is interrupting. “Allow me to complete the whole argument”, Parasaran; “I was interrupted at every stage and I responded to each query”, Dhavan; “That is a very unfortunate comment”, Vaidyanathan counters.Parasaran continuing with his arguments after that brief interruption.In the context of 1886 suit and Res Judicata, Parasaran says that even otherwise Shabait does not represent the interests of Hindus.The question is whether it is a mosque or a temple – temple in the sense Ram Janmasthan, Parasaran.What is the difference between Janmabhoomi and Janmasthan? Justice Bobde; Janmabhoomi can be a vast area. Entire Bharat can be considered Janmabhoomi but Janmasthan is the exact location, Parasaran.K Parasaran concludes, CS Vaidyanathan commences rejoinder submissions. The Muslim parties are contending now that the structure found by ASI is an Idgah. So they are contending that Mughals demolished an Idgah to build the mosque, CS Vaidyanathan.Once it is proved that Lord Ram was born at the palace that existed at the spot, no idol/ deity is required, Vaidyanathan.“To characterise judgment of High Court as guesswork…I am sorry is completely unwarranted”, Vaidyanathan. “The judgment itself says so. I have not characterised anything. I have extracted from judgment itself”, Dhavan retorts.When property is dedicated for a particular purpose, then the property upon which the purpose is impressed, is elevated to the status of a juristic person, Vaidyanathan.What if there is no dedication? Justice Chandrachud; The fact that people believe that Lord Ram was born there is good enough. It need not be merely by way of Dedication, Vaidyanathan. If the belief is that due to the Lord being born there that land is sanctified, that is sufficient, Vaidyanathan.The concept of juristic personality was not there during Vedic times. That developed in the last two centuries, Vaidyanathan.Vaidyanathan says no mention of Eidgah in written statement of Muslim parties, Vaidyanathan.Dhavan interrupts “How could question of Eidgah or any structure beneath come up before the digging.”Vaidyanathan vociferously objects to Dhavan interrupting.Not one of the fact witness has spoken about Eidgah Surely, it cannot be the case that Babur demolished the Eidgah and put up the mosque, Vaidyanathan.Allegations of malafides against ASI which is a reputed organisation is most unfortunate, Vaidyanathan. “I never argued any malafides in this court“, Meenakshi Arora.Vaidyanathan showing the Bench walls excavated by ASI.Dhavan counters that the walls which Vaidyanathan is showing were not excavated.Why was it not shown when they argued. Now why are they interrupting when I am arguing, Vaidyanathan retorts.We did refer to it, Dhavan says. Dhavan and Arora now pointing out to the Bench parts of the wall which were excavated.Meenakshi Arora, Rajeev Dhavan try to explain further on the issue of wall excavation but CJI Ranjan Gogoi cuts them short. Vaidyanathan now continuing with his arguments.For three days, arguments were advanced about archeology and not a word was whispered about these walls, Vaidyanathan.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. An account of Day 32 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 33 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 34 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 Muslim parties to the Ayodhya dispute had concluded yesterday, rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties had begun yesterday..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Senior Advocate K Parasaran resumes his rejoinder submissions on behalf of Hindu deity Ram Lalla.One deity can manifest itself in several forms in the same temple, K Parasaran says and cites example of Supreme Court itself. There are many judges and Benches but judgment is attributed to Supreme Court, says Parasaran.Rajeev Dhavan objects again, submits that “these are entirely new arguments and not a reply to reply“. Dhavan also says fact situation in other cases cited by Parasaran are different in that there were temples in existence in such cases unlike here.Land itself has been elevated to the status of a juristic entity in instances of charitable endowments, K Parasaran citing judgment in Kamaraju Venkata Krishna Rao v. Sub Collector and Thayarammal v. Kanakamma.Will it be applicable to every temple in India, SA Bobde J; It has to be decided on a case to case basis, ParasaranYou are saying divine character should be ascribed to bhoomi because of the belief that Avatar was born there. Should be cautious with that argument, Justice SA Bobde.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.Bench assembles, hearing commences.Two juristic entities can coexist in the same precincts – one in the form of the idol and the other in the form of the janmabhoomi. This has been explicitly clarified by the Supreme Court this in Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Das, K Parasaran.A consecrated idol is not the only form in which the deity is believed to manifest itself. The deity may be believed to manifest himself in any form – physical or perceived. Such form need not necessarily only be a movable object, Parasaran.K Parasaran responding on contentions regarding Res Judicata.Justice DY Chandrachud asks K Parasaran whether his stance is that the adjudication of 1886 suit would be covered by res judicata under 1882 Code of Civil Procedure and not 1908 Code of Civil Procedure even with respect to suits filed after 1908.Parasaran says yes. Justice Chandrachud not convinced by that argument.Now Rajiv Dhavan interjects to counter that submission of Parasaran. Dhavan says even if 1882 CPC is applied, res judicata will still come into play.“If they do down that road (that 1882 CPC will apply), a lot more will have to be argued”, submits Dhavan.K Parasaran says it is very unfair that Dhavan is interrupting. “Allow me to complete the whole argument”, Parasaran; “I was interrupted at every stage and I responded to each query”, Dhavan; “That is a very unfortunate comment”, Vaidyanathan counters.Parasaran continuing with his arguments after that brief interruption.In the context of 1886 suit and Res Judicata, Parasaran says that even otherwise Shabait does not represent the interests of Hindus.The question is whether it is a mosque or a temple – temple in the sense Ram Janmasthan, Parasaran.What is the difference between Janmabhoomi and Janmasthan? Justice Bobde; Janmabhoomi can be a vast area. Entire Bharat can be considered Janmabhoomi but Janmasthan is the exact location, Parasaran.K Parasaran concludes, CS Vaidyanathan commences rejoinder submissions. The Muslim parties are contending now that the structure found by ASI is an Idgah. So they are contending that Mughals demolished an Idgah to build the mosque, CS Vaidyanathan.Once it is proved that Lord Ram was born at the palace that existed at the spot, no idol/ deity is required, Vaidyanathan.“To characterise judgment of High Court as guesswork…I am sorry is completely unwarranted”, Vaidyanathan. “The judgment itself says so. I have not characterised anything. I have extracted from judgment itself”, Dhavan retorts.When property is dedicated for a particular purpose, then the property upon which the purpose is impressed, is elevated to the status of a juristic person, Vaidyanathan.What if there is no dedication? Justice Chandrachud; The fact that people believe that Lord Ram was born there is good enough. It need not be merely by way of Dedication, Vaidyanathan. If the belief is that due to the Lord being born there that land is sanctified, that is sufficient, Vaidyanathan.The concept of juristic personality was not there during Vedic times. That developed in the last two centuries, Vaidyanathan.Vaidyanathan says no mention of Eidgah in written statement of Muslim parties, Vaidyanathan.Dhavan interrupts “How could question of Eidgah or any structure beneath come up before the digging.”Vaidyanathan vociferously objects to Dhavan interrupting.Not one of the fact witness has spoken about Eidgah Surely, it cannot be the case that Babur demolished the Eidgah and put up the mosque, Vaidyanathan.Allegations of malafides against ASI which is a reputed organisation is most unfortunate, Vaidyanathan. “I never argued any malafides in this court“, Meenakshi Arora.Vaidyanathan showing the Bench walls excavated by ASI.Dhavan counters that the walls which Vaidyanathan is showing were not excavated.Why was it not shown when they argued. Now why are they interrupting when I am arguing, Vaidyanathan retorts.We did refer to it, Dhavan says. Dhavan and Arora now pointing out to the Bench parts of the wall which were excavated.Meenakshi Arora, Rajeev Dhavan try to explain further on the issue of wall excavation but CJI Ranjan Gogoi cuts them short. Vaidyanathan now continuing with his arguments.For three days, arguments were advanced about archeology and not a word was whispered about these walls, Vaidyanathan.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. An account of Day 32 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 33 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 34 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 35]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F09%2FAyodhya-dispute-23.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
