The hearing in the case relating to the Ayodhya/Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir 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..The hearing in the case had commenced on August 6, with arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. In the following hearings, apart from the Nirmohi Akhara, submissions were also made on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla..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..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan continues his submissions for Ram LallaVaidyanathan submits that there are photographs to show that there were sculptures and structures in the mosque structure which shows a temple existed there.No mosques ordinarliy contain pillars with images of deities etc., CS Vaidyanathan.Justice Khan of Allahabad HC has taken the view that certain parts of earlier structure has been used to build the mosque though that will not make it an invalid mosque, CS Vaidyanathan.Even a street can be used to offer prayers but does not mean that street will become or can be treated as a mosque. This structure was never in the true sense considered a mosque, CS Vaidyanathan.The images are contrary to the Islamic beliefs and practices, CS Vaidyanathan.Vaidyanathan placing reliance on photographs showing and evidence of pooja etc. within the mosque. Bench asks when the photograph was taken. Vaidyanathan says 1990.CS Vaidyanathan reading out findings from the ASI report. Justice Bobde: Was carbon dating done? CS Vaidyanathan: It was done with respect to the excavated materials. Rajeev Dhavan: Carbon dating can be done only of organic material, not of idols.Justice Bobde inquires if some carbon dating was done. Dhavan explains, carbon dating can be done of items like bones etc that are carbon; not of things like bricks and metal. CS Vaidyanathan says idols spoken of were excavated but not carbon dated.Bench rises for lunch and will reassemble at 2pm..Post-Lunch Session.Constitution Bench assembles. CS Vaidyanathan resumes his arguments.Preponderance of probability would suggest that there was a temple dedicated to Lord Rama on the land where later the Mosque was built.There was a suggestion that a Buddhist monument may have existed at the site. This suggestion was categorically rejected by Dr. Nagaswamy, CS Vaidyanathan.The Mosque was not built on a vacant land or an agricultural land but on a land where a structure existed which dates back to 2nd Century BC, CS Vaidyanathan.Justice DY Chandrachud: Civilizations have always habited close to flow of rivers. Progressively over millenia we have had civilisations coming and settling near source of water and rebuilding. They occupied same areas and built.Justice Bobde and Justice Chandrachud ask CS Vaidyanathan to establish that the Mosque was built on another religious structure. Bobde J: You have established that there was a structure there. But was it a religious structure?CS Vaidyanathan refers to the conclusion in the ASI report which said that the remains excavated were from a large structure with a lot of pillars and columns which date back to the 2nd century BC and this structure was open to public.Bench rises for the day. Hearing to resume on Monday. .Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The hearing in the case relating to the Ayodhya/Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir 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..The hearing in the case had commenced on August 6, with arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. In the following hearings, apart from the Nirmohi Akhara, submissions were also made on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla..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..Below are live updates from today’s hearing in the Ayodhya case:.Senior Counsel CS Vaidyanathan continues his submissions for Ram LallaVaidyanathan submits that there are photographs to show that there were sculptures and structures in the mosque structure which shows a temple existed there.No mosques ordinarliy contain pillars with images of deities etc., CS Vaidyanathan.Justice Khan of Allahabad HC has taken the view that certain parts of earlier structure has been used to build the mosque though that will not make it an invalid mosque, CS Vaidyanathan.Even a street can be used to offer prayers but does not mean that street will become or can be treated as a mosque. This structure was never in the true sense considered a mosque, CS Vaidyanathan.The images are contrary to the Islamic beliefs and practices, CS Vaidyanathan.Vaidyanathan placing reliance on photographs showing and evidence of pooja etc. within the mosque. Bench asks when the photograph was taken. Vaidyanathan says 1990.CS Vaidyanathan reading out findings from the ASI report. Justice Bobde: Was carbon dating done? CS Vaidyanathan: It was done with respect to the excavated materials. Rajeev Dhavan: Carbon dating can be done only of organic material, not of idols.Justice Bobde inquires if some carbon dating was done. Dhavan explains, carbon dating can be done of items like bones etc that are carbon; not of things like bricks and metal. CS Vaidyanathan says idols spoken of were excavated but not carbon dated.Bench rises for lunch and will reassemble at 2pm..Post-Lunch Session.Constitution Bench assembles. CS Vaidyanathan resumes his arguments.Preponderance of probability would suggest that there was a temple dedicated to Lord Rama on the land where later the Mosque was built.There was a suggestion that a Buddhist monument may have existed at the site. This suggestion was categorically rejected by Dr. Nagaswamy, CS Vaidyanathan.The Mosque was not built on a vacant land or an agricultural land but on a land where a structure existed which dates back to 2nd Century BC, CS Vaidyanathan.Justice DY Chandrachud: Civilizations have always habited close to flow of rivers. Progressively over millenia we have had civilisations coming and settling near source of water and rebuilding. They occupied same areas and built.Justice Bobde and Justice Chandrachud ask CS Vaidyanathan to establish that the Mosque was built on another religious structure. Bobde J: You have established that there was a structure there. But was it a religious structure?CS Vaidyanathan refers to the conclusion in the ASI report which said that the remains excavated were from a large structure with a lot of pillars and columns which date back to the 2nd century BC and this structure was open to public.Bench rises for the day. Hearing to resume on Monday. .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 7]](http://media.assettype.com/barandbench%2Fimport%2F2019%2F08%2FAyodhya-dispute-12.jpg?w=480&auto=format%2Ccompress&fit=max)
