Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 40]

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. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan yesterday concluded his reply arguments for the Muslim parties. Rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties have commenced yesterday..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi declares that at 5 PM today the hearing in the case will have concluded. “We have already asked all the intervenors to apportion the time accordingly.”Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan for Ram Lalla making his arguments says “they have not been able to prove complete ouster or exclusive possession”.Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan concludes his rejoinder arguments. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar begins his rejoinder submissions.I have argued on the pre-existing right to pray of the Hindus all along, Ranjit Kumar.Ranjit Kumar concludes. Advocate Jaideep Gupta begins his submissions, says will not argue on title or possession but on Shebait rights.It has been held that idol is a juridical person, worshippers are beneficiary. Baba Abhiram Das was found to be the Shebait of the deity.Late Baba Abhiram Das had an independent position as the priest and this position has been accepted by others also, Jaideep Gupta.Gupta concludes, Senior Counsel Vikas Singh begins to make submissions.Singh mentions the book “Ayodhya revisited” by Kunal Kishore. Rajeev Dhavan takes strong objection to placing on record contents from the book.Singh agrees to not to place reliance on the book, hands over maps and pages he wishes to place reliance on.Dhavan tears the pages handed to him to lodge his opposition.CJI Gogoi to Dhavan: You can shred it furtherOriginal place we are dealing with was the Ram Janmasthaan. In spite of the conversion of the site, Hindus continued to uninterruptedly offer prayers there, Vikas SinghI will be adopting the submissions of Mr. Parasaran and Vaidyanathan, Vikas Singh in conclusion to his submissions.Jain asked to conclude his submissions by lunch by the CourtBench rises for lunch. Rajeev Dhavan to get a slot post lunch to make his rejoinder arguments..Post Lunch Session.Senior Counsel PN Mishra starts his rejoinder submissions.They (Muslim side) have no evidence of use of the land or title of it prior to 1856, Mishra.Mishra cites written works and the gazetteer to make a case that the site was not put to use to offer namaz prior to the 1850sMishra concludes his arguments. Rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Hindu parties stand concluded. Rajeev Dhavan for one of the Muslim parties begins his rejoinder submissions.On Shebait, Dhavan says Dharam Das was never the Shebait, only a pujariDhavan says the Mahasabhas are split among themselves.Dhavan says there is no successor to the right to pray. There are successors to post, successors to a title, not to right to pray. The right to pray is a personal right.On the incident of tearing of the pages in Court in the morning session “The incident is going viral. But the fact is that I wanted to throw the pages away and the CJI said I may tear them. And I tore them so I’d say it was with the permission of Court”.CJI Gogoi agrees with Dhavan and clarifies in the Court that he indeed said Dhavan may tear the pages.We have said in our plaint that whatever was destroyed belonged to us and thus relief for restitution was made, DhavanOn grant by the government for the maintenance and upkeep of the Babri mosque, Justice Chandrachud: It does not grant title but is a declaration big recognition.Dhavan calls PN Mishra’s argument on the grant of land “foolish”.Mishra opposes the submission. Dhavan says it is about the argument, nothing personalOn adverse possession, Commisioner in 1886 had decided that Hindus had no title. Decision is binding on the appellants, the Hindus.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. Day 38 arguments may be read here and Day 39 arguments may be read here..[Read Order].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.