New Delhi, Oct 1 (udaipur kiran) Tempers rose on the 35th day of hearing in Ayodhya title dispute on Tuesday as Hindu parties claimed that the Muslim side was attempting to drag on the case, citing the cross-examination of a witness where he was asked to spot the labour room where Lord Ram was born.
Senior advocate K. Parasaran, representing Ram Lalla Virajman, specifically told the apex court that there is a clear attempt to prolong the case unnecessarily.
“They (the Muslim side) do not want it (the case) to be completed in even a century,” said the 93-year-old Parasaran, who then went to explain the difference between ‘Janmabhoomi’ and ‘Janmasthan’ (birthplace).
“Birthplace is a spot and Janmabhoomi can be equated with rest of the country. In one of the cross-examinations, in the Allahabad High Court, a witness was asked, was Lord Ram born in labour room and where was it. He (the deity) was born in Raja Dasharath’s place in Ayodhya,” he said, terming such kinds of questions “unfortunate”.
Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, contested this statement.
Muslim parties, in their arguments have claimed that Lord Ram was not born in the inner courtyard of the disputed site. On the contrary, Hindus have claimed Lord Ram’s birthplace was under the central dome of the Babri Masjid, which is the inner courtyard.
As the hearing progressed, heated arguments broke out between the parties, who began to question each other’s submissions before the court, leading the court to sharply intervene.
“What you think there is no application of mind on this side (five judges on the bench). We have explained it many times. Let him (Hindu parties’ counsel) argue”, said Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, in a sharp response to the Muslim parties.
Dhavan immediately apologized to the court.
The five-judge constitution bench, headed by the Chief Justice, is conducting daily hearing on the matter since August 6.
Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, a member of Hindu side’s legal team, contended the concept of juristic personality was present in the Vedic times.
He then argued to nullify the Muslims parties’ attack on the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, which indicated at the presence of a temple underneath the Babri Masjid after excavations.
The ASI was tasked by the Allahabad High Court to conduct the excavations.
“A court-appointed observer was present during the excavation. Muslim parties changed their argument regarding the wall indicating at the probability of Idgah. Never spoken about it before, no pleadings and no witnesses appeared to speak about it,” said Vaidyanathan.
He submitted before the court after the excavation, three archaeologists, who appeared for Muslim parties, came up to contest the ASI report. “It is an attempt to tarnish the image of ASI, which is recognized and invited by many southeast Asian countries,” he said, defending the report.
Vaidyanathan then informed the court that 25 videos were prepared on the excavation, and have been seen by the High Court. “The High Court did not see anything suspicious in the ASI report. Everything is meticulously examined and they (the Muslim side) criticize it,” he contended.
The Hindu parties also complained about the interventions caused by Muslim parties during their arguments. “We did not obstruct them while they were arguing. Why are they disturbing us,” Vaidyanathan said.
Later, a high-pitch arguments broke out between the parties on the presence of a wall, which Muslim parties contend indicates an Idgah, but Hindu parties refused to accept it.
The apex court is hearing a set of appeals against the Allahabad High Court’s 2010 judgement equally partitioning the 2.77 acre disputed area among three parties — Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board.
The hearing will continue on Thursday.
(Sumit Saxena can be contacted at [email protected])