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 concluded, rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties have begun..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.CS Vaidyanathan resumes his rejoinder arguments.Vaidyanathan making submissions on ASI report and the excavated walls.It is not an edigah wall, CS Vaidyanathan.That there was a structure beneath is beyond doubt from these excavations, CS Vaidyanathan.How do you establish that pillar bases are of same structure, Justice DY Chandrachud; It is mentioned in ASI report that 46 pillar bases belong to the same period, CS Vaidyanathan.Vaidyanathan also pointing out extracts from the judgment to buttress his argument that 46 pillar bases are from the same structure.The point that the massive structure found beneath during excavation was a Hindu temple is an inference, CS Vaidyanathan.Could the features cited to claim that it is a Hindu temple also be present in Buddhist Viharas? In other words, burden of proof is on you to prove that it is a Hindu temple, Justice DY Chandrachud.This is a place of significance for the Hindus. It has not been a holy place of Buddhists. It is therefore a reasonable inference that it was a Hindu temple, CS Vaidyanathan.Faith and belief is a completely different argument. Of course, there cannot be evidence for faith and belief. But we are now on the argument of core evidence, Justice DY Chandrachud.CS Vaidyanathan arguing how recording of history in India was different from what prevailed in Western world. It was based on customs, tradition and culture and that cannot be reason for discounting the same or to summarily dismiss them, Vaidyanathan.Rajeev Dhavan interjects to state that “we are not challenging Vedas, Shrutis, or Smritis”.Our argument was that the testimonies of the witnesses cannot establish continuous worship at the site prior to 1934, Rajeev Dhavan.Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar for Gopal Singh Visharad says that old documents show that the site was called as ‘Masjid janmasthaan’.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.Constitution Bench assembles for the post lunch session.Senior Counsel PS Narasimha making submissions now.The question is how does the Court determine the fact of belief based on the statements of the believers, Narasimha.Large number of cases say that right to worship is a civil right and this right has to be ascertained based on preponderance of probability, NarasimhaNarasimha quoting shlokas written in the Skanda Purana which mentions the JanmasthaanThe Skanda purana is from the pre Muslim period, NarasimhaThe mention of the Janmasthaan in the Skanda Purana proves that this is a religious site for my religion by virtue of which I have been ordained, Narasimha arguing for Ram LallaEver since human history goes and speaks of existence of mosque it is not standalone, we always have material where existence of mosque is continually referred to with mention of Hindus worshipping there, NarasimhaArcheological evidence corroborates our faith, NarasimhaSenior Counsel Sushil Jain refers to the hearing in the Ayodhya case as a 20-20 match; CJI Gogoi: Mr. Jain we don’t appreciate the way you are looking at the process, calling it a 20-20 match. We have heard you for 4.5 days, now you’re saying this.The story of December 1949 of Hindus placing idols is untrue and coined by Muslim parties to create trouble, Sushil Kumar Jain.On a lighter note, Justice Bobde says to SK Jain: You have to argue so that we understand your point, you don’t have to argue till we agree with you. We have understood your point on limitation but does not mean we have to agree with you.Senior Counsel PN Mishra commences his counter arguments, talks about Skanda Purana and Ram Setu.Rajeev Dhavan objects to Mishra introducing new evidence and says Mishra’s reply should be limited to the six-point argument advanced by Dhavan.CJI Ranjan Gogoi tells Mishra so long as as he restricts his arguments by way of reply to Dhavan’s submissions and to his main arguments it is fine, however, he may not introduce new aspects to his arguments at this stage.All scriptural texts are susceptible to different interpretations. This evidence cannot be placed before us at this point, Justice DY Chandrachud says when Mishra quotes meanings from Hindu dictionary; Dhavan says this dictionary is not in record.CJI tells Mishra that his new evidence cannot be taken into consideration at this point. If his new material is considered, the other side shall also have the right to counter it; “We cannot hear your new submissions at this stage“, CJI to PN Mishra.CJI Gogoi: What is the Constitutional question being decided by this Bench? Just because a five-Judge Bench is sitting, doesn’t make it a Constitution Bench. This kind of suit can be decided by a two-Judge Bench also.CJI Gogoi: A five-Judge Constitution Bench is hearing this case because of the importance and sensitivity of the matter.Court tells PN Mishra that he was heard for the time allotted to him but his new submissions cannot be heard at this stage. SK Jain asked to resume his submissions.Bench rises for the day. Hearing in the case to continue tomorrow..Read an account of Day 1 of the arguments in the Ayodhya case 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. An account of Day 35 arguments 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 Muslim parties to the Ayodhya dispute concluded, rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties have begun..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.CS Vaidyanathan resumes his rejoinder arguments.Vaidyanathan making submissions on ASI report and the excavated walls.It is not an edigah wall, CS Vaidyanathan.That there was a structure beneath is beyond doubt from these excavations, CS Vaidyanathan.How do you establish that pillar bases are of same structure, Justice DY Chandrachud; It is mentioned in ASI report that 46 pillar bases belong to the same period, CS Vaidyanathan.Vaidyanathan also pointing out extracts from the judgment to buttress his argument that 46 pillar bases are from the same structure.The point that the massive structure found beneath during excavation was a Hindu temple is an inference, CS Vaidyanathan.Could the features cited to claim that it is a Hindu temple also be present in Buddhist Viharas? In other words, burden of proof is on you to prove that it is a Hindu temple, Justice DY Chandrachud.This is a place of significance for the Hindus. It has not been a holy place of Buddhists. It is therefore a reasonable inference that it was a Hindu temple, CS Vaidyanathan.Faith and belief is a completely different argument. Of course, there cannot be evidence for faith and belief. But we are now on the argument of core evidence, Justice DY Chandrachud.CS Vaidyanathan arguing how recording of history in India was different from what prevailed in Western world. It was based on customs, tradition and culture and that cannot be reason for discounting the same or to summarily dismiss them, Vaidyanathan.Rajeev Dhavan interjects to state that “we are not challenging Vedas, Shrutis, or Smritis”.Our argument was that the testimonies of the witnesses cannot establish continuous worship at the site prior to 1934, Rajeev Dhavan.Senior Counsel Ranjit Kumar for Gopal Singh Visharad says that old documents show that the site was called as ‘Masjid janmasthaan’.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch Updates.Constitution Bench assembles for the post lunch session.Senior Counsel PS Narasimha making submissions now.The question is how does the Court determine the fact of belief based on the statements of the believers, Narasimha.Large number of cases say that right to worship is a civil right and this right has to be ascertained based on preponderance of probability, NarasimhaNarasimha quoting shlokas written in the Skanda Purana which mentions the JanmasthaanThe Skanda purana is from the pre Muslim period, NarasimhaThe mention of the Janmasthaan in the Skanda Purana proves that this is a religious site for my religion by virtue of which I have been ordained, Narasimha arguing for Ram LallaEver since human history goes and speaks of existence of mosque it is not standalone, we always have material where existence of mosque is continually referred to with mention of Hindus worshipping there, NarasimhaArcheological evidence corroborates our faith, NarasimhaSenior Counsel Sushil Jain refers to the hearing in the Ayodhya case as a 20-20 match; CJI Gogoi: Mr. Jain we don’t appreciate the way you are looking at the process, calling it a 20-20 match. We have heard you for 4.5 days, now you’re saying this.The story of December 1949 of Hindus placing idols is untrue and coined by Muslim parties to create trouble, Sushil Kumar Jain.On a lighter note, Justice Bobde says to SK Jain: You have to argue so that we understand your point, you don’t have to argue till we agree with you. We have understood your point on limitation but does not mean we have to agree with you.Senior Counsel PN Mishra commences his counter arguments, talks about Skanda Purana and Ram Setu.Rajeev Dhavan objects to Mishra introducing new evidence and says Mishra’s reply should be limited to the six-point argument advanced by Dhavan.CJI Ranjan Gogoi tells Mishra so long as as he restricts his arguments by way of reply to Dhavan’s submissions and to his main arguments it is fine, however, he may not introduce new aspects to his arguments at this stage.All scriptural texts are susceptible to different interpretations. This evidence cannot be placed before us at this point, Justice DY Chandrachud says when Mishra quotes meanings from Hindu dictionary; Dhavan says this dictionary is not in record.CJI tells Mishra that his new evidence cannot be taken into consideration at this point. If his new material is considered, the other side shall also have the right to counter it; “We cannot hear your new submissions at this stage“, CJI to PN Mishra.CJI Gogoi: What is the Constitutional question being decided by this Bench? Just because a five-Judge Bench is sitting, doesn’t make it a Constitution Bench. This kind of suit can be decided by a two-Judge Bench also.CJI Gogoi: A five-Judge Constitution Bench is hearing this case because of the importance and sensitivity of the matter.Court tells PN Mishra that he was heard for the time allotted to him but his new submissions cannot be heard at this stage. SK Jain asked to resume his submissions.Bench rises for the day. Hearing in the case to continue tomorrow..Read an account of Day 1 of the arguments in the Ayodhya case 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. An account of Day 35 arguments 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 36]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F09%2FLive-Ayodhya-Dispute.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
