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..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..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Bench assembles, hearing commences. Rajeev Dhavan resumes arguments.According to their Janmasthan argument, what they project is that the Janmasthan is ironclad, cannot be subject to adverse possession, etc.The consequences of accepting such argument is in future a parikrama can be done at a place and then it can be insulated from the arm of the law. The consequences of that will be huge, Rajeev Dhavan.Swayabhoo acquires tangibility because the image looks like a divine form. Claims on the lines made by them on janamasthan being juristic personality cannot be allowed to run riot. It should be a manifestation recognizable as divine form, Rajeev DhavanThe belief is that Lord Ram was born at that place. Is anything more required to lay a claim to it? If so what, asks Justice Ashok Bhushan.None of us is disputing sacrality of Lord Ram. Nobody is also disputing that Lord Ram was born somewhere in Ayodhya. But when will such sacrality be sufficient to convert the place into a juristic personality? Dhavan asks.There must be some tangible manifestation like the Kailasa peak. There should be continuity of belief and it should be also shown that prayer was done there in certain manner, Rajeev Dhavan.So are you saying there should be some physical manifestation? asks Justice Chandrachud. Will it not be very difficult to lay down parameters on when the place becomes a juristic personality? Justice Chandrachud to Rajeev Dhavan.None of the texts have been able to provide an exact place at Ayodhya where Lord Ram was born, Rajeev Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan now making submissions on the position taken by Shia.There are at least three spots in Ayodhya which is claimed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, Rajeev Dhavan.Dhavan reading out statements of persons to show the position of Shias in the case. As per the same Hindus and Muslims co-existed peacefully in the place, Dhavan says.The Sunni position is “show us where the place of birth is”. Shias have shown exuberant generosity in these proceedings, Dhavan.There are no images of any God on kasauti pillars What is relied upon is a lotus. These pillars don’t have anything directly representing any God or idol. It has decorative pieces which could have come from anything, Dhavan.The question is what are these pillars. There is no direct evidence of an image of God. They have to show that. Where these Kasautis came from, who brought them etc have to be answered by them, Rajeev Dhavan.The argument advanced by them is that since Lotus is there on Kasauti pillars, the same is unquranic and not Islamic. That is asking for a little too much, Dhavan.Just because there is a cross near a temple in Kerala, the temple does not cease to be a temple, Rajeev Dhavan.Mosques were not built by Muslims alone. Taj Mahal was not built by Muslims alone. There were Muslims laborers, Hindu laborers, Rajeev Dhavan.Justice Ashok Bhushan says the image of a Dwarpal was found on the pillar.It is not the case of Hindus that they brought the pillars, Dhavan.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch HearingRajeev Dhavan requesting the Court for a day off on Friday this week. Court asks all lawyers to sit together and give a tentative schedule for completing arguments after which Court will take a call.
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..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..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Bench assembles, hearing commences. Rajeev Dhavan resumes arguments.According to their Janmasthan argument, what they project is that the Janmasthan is ironclad, cannot be subject to adverse possession, etc.The consequences of accepting such argument is in future a parikrama can be done at a place and then it can be insulated from the arm of the law. The consequences of that will be huge, Rajeev Dhavan.Swayabhoo acquires tangibility because the image looks like a divine form. Claims on the lines made by them on janamasthan being juristic personality cannot be allowed to run riot. It should be a manifestation recognizable as divine form, Rajeev DhavanThe belief is that Lord Ram was born at that place. Is anything more required to lay a claim to it? If so what, asks Justice Ashok Bhushan.None of us is disputing sacrality of Lord Ram. Nobody is also disputing that Lord Ram was born somewhere in Ayodhya. But when will such sacrality be sufficient to convert the place into a juristic personality? Dhavan asks.There must be some tangible manifestation like the Kailasa peak. There should be continuity of belief and it should be also shown that prayer was done there in certain manner, Rajeev Dhavan.So are you saying there should be some physical manifestation? asks Justice Chandrachud. Will it not be very difficult to lay down parameters on when the place becomes a juristic personality? Justice Chandrachud to Rajeev Dhavan.None of the texts have been able to provide an exact place at Ayodhya where Lord Ram was born, Rajeev Dhavan.Rajeev Dhavan now making submissions on the position taken by Shia.There are at least three spots in Ayodhya which is claimed to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, Rajeev Dhavan.Dhavan reading out statements of persons to show the position of Shias in the case. As per the same Hindus and Muslims co-existed peacefully in the place, Dhavan says.The Sunni position is “show us where the place of birth is”. Shias have shown exuberant generosity in these proceedings, Dhavan.There are no images of any God on kasauti pillars What is relied upon is a lotus. These pillars don’t have anything directly representing any God or idol. It has decorative pieces which could have come from anything, Dhavan.The question is what are these pillars. There is no direct evidence of an image of God. They have to show that. Where these Kasautis came from, who brought them etc have to be answered by them, Rajeev Dhavan.The argument advanced by them is that since Lotus is there on Kasauti pillars, the same is unquranic and not Islamic. That is asking for a little too much, Dhavan.Just because there is a cross near a temple in Kerala, the temple does not cease to be a temple, Rajeev Dhavan.Mosques were not built by Muslims alone. Taj Mahal was not built by Muslims alone. There were Muslims laborers, Hindu laborers, Rajeev Dhavan.Justice Ashok Bhushan says the image of a Dwarpal was found on the pillar.It is not the case of Hindus that they brought the pillars, Dhavan.Bench rises for lunch..Post Lunch HearingRajeev Dhavan requesting the Court for a day off on Friday this week. Court asks all lawyers to sit together and give a tentative schedule for completing arguments after which Court will take a call.
![Ayodhya Hearing: Live Updates from Supreme Court [Day 25]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F09%2FLive-Ayodhya-Dispute.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
