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 made on behalf of the other Hindu parties; the deity Ram Lalla and the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti, and, thereafter, for the Muslim parties. This was followed by rejoinder arguments for the Hindu parties, and thereafter the reply on behalf of the Muslim parties commenced..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Bench assembles, hearing commences.Your Lordships cannot give preference to one person. It is not fair, Rajeev Dhavan objecting to Subramanian Swamy occuppying lawyers’ seats. CJI says will look into it.Custom is not a mind game, Rajeev Dhavan.Most of the judgments cited by the other side is without factual foundation, Rajeev Dhavan.There was no claim of title by Hindus till 1989, Rajeev Dhavan.here is no finding of destruction of temple by ASI, Rajeev Dhavan.Possession creates bar to claim of title against owner. We have been in possession throughout. Their claim to title comes much later. In fact, their claim to title was denied in 1986, Rajeev Dhavan.Justice Chandrachud asks Dhavan about the possession of outer courtyard by Hindus. “Documents post 1858 shows Ram Chabutra was setup, possession had been with them”, Justice Chandrachud.Muslims were constantly entering by eastern gate. Hindus did not therefore have possession, only right they had was the right to pray, Rajeev Dhavan.No My Lord, says Dhavan. I have possession of land. Somebody asks me can I wash my hands there. I agree. It will mature to a prescriptive right and nothing more, Rajeev Dhavan.If they had the right to pray, then will it not dilute your claim of exclusive possession, Justice SA Bobde to Rajeev Dhavan.They have not claimed anything more than prescriptive right, Dhavan.One thing I have noticed about this hearing is that all Your Lordships questions have been directed at me. No questions have been put to them (Hindus), Rajeev Dhavan.Such comments are unwarranted, CS Vaidyanathan; No, they are not. But I am dutybound to answer the questions, Dhavan.They said they have a right to build a temple there. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the land in question, Rajeev Dhavan.The issue of title as to whom the land belongs to was raised by Hindus and denied, Dhavan.They say our title trumps yours, that is all they say, Rajeev Dhavan.On their arguments on Quoran, I must say they are not experts. All that they have done is pick up something from Quran and make an argument. Islamic law and practice is much more than that, Rajeev Dhavan.This appeal is against the majority judgment which ruled against Muslims on limitation, Dhavan.The case against us is Article 120 of Limitation Act applies since we filed the suit in 1961. Our case is Article 120 does not apply, Rajeev Dhavan.We can’t keep pretending that December 1992 did not happen, Rajeev Dhavan.In 1950, all that Hindus claimed was the right to pray. The first suit is for right to pray, Dhavan.The Limitation Act, 1908 and 1963 are a complete codes in itself, Dhavan..Post Lunch updates.There is no mystery as to what ‘final order’ is, Rajeev Dhavan making submissions on limitation.Final order means final order passed by Magistrate. Article 47 does not apply to me, Rajeev Dhavan.Hindus had accepted that they have only a prescriptive right to prayer till 1989, Rajeev Dhavan.My title is beyond dispute, they have never adversely possessed it, Rajeev Dhavan.We are treating India as a monolith. The practices in North India are different from South India. Amartya Sen recently spoke about how Durga is worshipped in Bengal, not Lord Ram except for a few Hindus, Rajeev Dhavan.Islamic law has evolved over 15 centuries, cannot pick and choose from Quran and Hadith to say “you are acting against Quran”, Rajeev Dhavan.What law are we going to apply to judge Babur, Rajeev Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan citing precedents laying down characteristics of Wakf properties.Do not go into the exercise of rulership and legitimacy of rulership. It is not for Your Lordships to rewrite history, will open a Pandoras box, Rajeev Dhavan.It would be like rewriting history books every time a new government comes to power in New Delhi, Rajeev Dhavan.Counsel for Hindu parties object to Dhavan’s submissions that arguments by Hindu parties on Islamic law lacked expertise.History books might be written based on Your Lordships understanding (of the subject). I dont want that. Uniform Civil Code is one example where Your Lordships have been extremely careful, Rajeev Dhavan.Is it their proposition that digging must take place over 500 mosques which they claim were built over Hindu temples, Rajeev Dhavan.Even if we find something below, can the mosque be invalidated after 450 years, Rajeev Dhavan.When was the claim of adverse possession made? Was it made after 1885 at any point of time, asks Rajeev Dhavan.They have to prove adverse possession. Telling a few Muslims that they cannot pray there is not adverse possession, Rajeev Dhavan.My emphasis under Islamic law as Your Lordships have laid down, is that even if there is no dedication but there is use, it is good enough to be recognised as a Masjid, Rajeev Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan concludes his arguments.Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu who is on mediation panel writes letter to CJI expressing security threat to Chairperson of Sunni Wakf Board, Zufar Faruqui. Supreme Court orders State of Uttar Pradesh to provide adequate security to Faruqui..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. An account of Day 36 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 37 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 made on behalf of the other Hindu parties; the deity Ram Lalla and the Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti, and, thereafter, for the Muslim parties. This was followed by rejoinder arguments for the Hindu parties, and thereafter the reply on behalf of the Muslim parties commenced..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Bench assembles, hearing commences.Your Lordships cannot give preference to one person. It is not fair, Rajeev Dhavan objecting to Subramanian Swamy occuppying lawyers’ seats. CJI says will look into it.Custom is not a mind game, Rajeev Dhavan.Most of the judgments cited by the other side is without factual foundation, Rajeev Dhavan.There was no claim of title by Hindus till 1989, Rajeev Dhavan.here is no finding of destruction of temple by ASI, Rajeev Dhavan.Possession creates bar to claim of title against owner. We have been in possession throughout. Their claim to title comes much later. In fact, their claim to title was denied in 1986, Rajeev Dhavan.Justice Chandrachud asks Dhavan about the possession of outer courtyard by Hindus. “Documents post 1858 shows Ram Chabutra was setup, possession had been with them”, Justice Chandrachud.Muslims were constantly entering by eastern gate. Hindus did not therefore have possession, only right they had was the right to pray, Rajeev Dhavan.No My Lord, says Dhavan. I have possession of land. Somebody asks me can I wash my hands there. I agree. It will mature to a prescriptive right and nothing more, Rajeev Dhavan.If they had the right to pray, then will it not dilute your claim of exclusive possession, Justice SA Bobde to Rajeev Dhavan.They have not claimed anything more than prescriptive right, Dhavan.One thing I have noticed about this hearing is that all Your Lordships questions have been directed at me. No questions have been put to them (Hindus), Rajeev Dhavan.Such comments are unwarranted, CS Vaidyanathan; No, they are not. But I am dutybound to answer the questions, Dhavan.They said they have a right to build a temple there. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the land in question, Rajeev Dhavan.The issue of title as to whom the land belongs to was raised by Hindus and denied, Dhavan.They say our title trumps yours, that is all they say, Rajeev Dhavan.On their arguments on Quoran, I must say they are not experts. All that they have done is pick up something from Quran and make an argument. Islamic law and practice is much more than that, Rajeev Dhavan.This appeal is against the majority judgment which ruled against Muslims on limitation, Dhavan.The case against us is Article 120 of Limitation Act applies since we filed the suit in 1961. Our case is Article 120 does not apply, Rajeev Dhavan.We can’t keep pretending that December 1992 did not happen, Rajeev Dhavan.In 1950, all that Hindus claimed was the right to pray. The first suit is for right to pray, Dhavan.The Limitation Act, 1908 and 1963 are a complete codes in itself, Dhavan..Post Lunch updates.There is no mystery as to what ‘final order’ is, Rajeev Dhavan making submissions on limitation.Final order means final order passed by Magistrate. Article 47 does not apply to me, Rajeev Dhavan.Hindus had accepted that they have only a prescriptive right to prayer till 1989, Rajeev Dhavan.My title is beyond dispute, they have never adversely possessed it, Rajeev Dhavan.We are treating India as a monolith. The practices in North India are different from South India. Amartya Sen recently spoke about how Durga is worshipped in Bengal, not Lord Ram except for a few Hindus, Rajeev Dhavan.Islamic law has evolved over 15 centuries, cannot pick and choose from Quran and Hadith to say “you are acting against Quran”, Rajeev Dhavan.What law are we going to apply to judge Babur, Rajeev Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan citing precedents laying down characteristics of Wakf properties.Do not go into the exercise of rulership and legitimacy of rulership. It is not for Your Lordships to rewrite history, will open a Pandoras box, Rajeev Dhavan.It would be like rewriting history books every time a new government comes to power in New Delhi, Rajeev Dhavan.Counsel for Hindu parties object to Dhavan’s submissions that arguments by Hindu parties on Islamic law lacked expertise.History books might be written based on Your Lordships understanding (of the subject). I dont want that. Uniform Civil Code is one example where Your Lordships have been extremely careful, Rajeev Dhavan.Is it their proposition that digging must take place over 500 mosques which they claim were built over Hindu temples, Rajeev Dhavan.Even if we find something below, can the mosque be invalidated after 450 years, Rajeev Dhavan.When was the claim of adverse possession made? Was it made after 1885 at any point of time, asks Rajeev Dhavan.They have to prove adverse possession. Telling a few Muslims that they cannot pray there is not adverse possession, Rajeev Dhavan.My emphasis under Islamic law as Your Lordships have laid down, is that even if there is no dedication but there is use, it is good enough to be recognised as a Masjid, Rajeev Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan concludes his arguments.Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu who is on mediation panel writes letter to CJI expressing security threat to Chairperson of Sunni Wakf Board, Zufar Faruqui. Supreme Court orders State of Uttar Pradesh to provide adequate security to Faruqui..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. An account of Day 36 arguments can be read here. An account of Day 37 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 38]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F10%2FAyodhya-a-1.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
