Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid Case Hearing HIGHLIGHTS: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) international president Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje Wednesday expressed hope for a “favourable” verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case, hours after the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the case. “The pleas in favour of ownership of Hindus on the disputed land in Ayodhya were presented strongly in the supreme court. We are hoping for a good result. We hope the SC will deliver a very clear verdict in this case,” he told PTI.
The Supreme Court Wednesday concluded the hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case and has reserved the judgment. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi also asked the parties to file written submissions on the moulding of relief in three days.
Earlier in the day, the Court Room 1 witnessed high drama as senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, tore papers handed to him by the All India Hindu Maha Sabha’s counsel. The papers apparently contained a map illustrating the birthplace of Lord Ram. Dhavan later said the CJI Ranjan Gogoi allowed him to tear the papers. The CJI sarcastically said he indeed had allowed Dhavan to tear the pages.
The Supreme Court hearing in the Ayodhya case is likely to conclude today. Here are all the HIGHLIGHTS.
Hoping for best decision in our favour: VHP on Ayodhya case
VHP international president Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje on Wednesday expressed hope for a "favourable" verdict in the Ayodhya title suit case, hours after the Supreme Court reserved its order on the protracted litigation.
After hearing the arguments for 40 days of the Hindu and the Muslim sides, the apex court concluded hearing in the politically-sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.
"The pleas in favour of ownership of Hindus on the disputed land in Ayodhya were presented strongly in the supreme court. We are hoping for a good result. We hope the SC will deliver a very clear verdict in this case," he told PTI.
After Ayodhya hearing concludes, UP govt cancels leaves for field officials till Nov 30
As the Supreme Court concluded hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case Wednesday, the Uttar Pradesh government issued an order saying officials on “field duty” will not be granted leave till November 30. The official order, however, attributed the decision to the festival season.
The order mentions that no official should be granted leave, unless in the most unavoidable circumstances, till November 30. Read more
After the fight, the pat: Parasaran, Dhavan greet each other outside the court
Senior Counsel K Parasaran for Ayodhya deity Ramlalla Virajmaan and Rajeev Dhavan for UP Sunni Central Wakf Board greet each other after the last day’s hearing.
#Ayodhya hearing: After the fight, the pat. Senior Counsel K Parasaran for Ayodhya deity Ramlalla Virajmaan & Rajeev Dhavan for U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board when they met after the last day’s hearing. @IndianExpress pic.twitter.com/MdR0QvdZq2— Ananthakrishnan G (@axidentaljourno) October 16, 2019
SC gives the parties 3 days to submit moulding of relief
The Supreme Court asks parties to file written submissions on the moulding of relief in three days.
Hearing concludes, Supreme Court reserves judgment
Supreme Court winds up hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case on the 40th day of hearing. The court has reserved its judgment.
NBSA issues advisory on Ayodhya hearing coverage
News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) issues advisory on Ayodhya hearing coverage:
-Do not speculate court proceedings.
-Ascertain facts of hearing.
-Do not use mosque demolition footage.
-Do not broadcast any celebrations.
-Ensure no extreme views are aired in debates.
News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) issues advisory on #AyodhyaHearing coverage:— ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2019
*Do not speculate court proceedings.
*Ascertain facts of hearing.
*Do not use mosque demolition footage.
*Do not broadcast any celebrations.
*Ensure no extreme views are aired in debates.
Dhavan: We seek restoration of Babri Masjid as it stood on December 5, 1992
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan: "We seek restoration of Babri Masjid as it stood on December 5, 1992. The demolished building belonged to us. The right to reconstruct it also belongs to us. Nobody else has the right."
Dhavan: we seek restoration of Babri Masjid as it stood on Dec 5, 1992. The demolished building belonged to us. The right to reconstruct it also belongs to us. Nobody else has the right. @IndianExpress— Ananthakrishnan G (@axidentaljourno) October 16, 2019
Dhavan tore the map as he thought it would make his case 'non-existent', says publisher
Kunal Kishore, publisher of map that was handed over to Advocate Dhavan: He is an intellectual, he thought if this map is presented before the court his case will become non-existent. If he had objections he could have said that in the time that was given to him.
Dhavan tore the map in the courtroom.
Kunal Kishore, publisher of map that was handed over to Advocate Dhavan: He is an intellectual, he thought if this map is presented before the court his case will become non-existent. If he had objections he could have said that in the time that was given to him. #AyodhyaCase https://t.co/zO5tqnBpkg pic.twitter.com/sx2iF9gnll— ANI (@ANI) October 16, 2019
Dhavan: Islam is an extremely attractive faith for people living in caste-ridden society
On Babur's conquest, Rajeev Dhavan argues: "Sultanate began only in 1206. Islam is an extremely attractive faith for people living in a caste-ridden society. You will say no no, they are all converted."
"India was not one political entity. There were many conquests by rulers even inside India, many by Hindu rulers. Were they any different because the conquerors were Hindus?" he adds.
Dhavan calls P N Mishra's arguments on grant of land 'foolish'
Dhavan calls the arguments made by Punaruddhar Samiti' counsel P N Mishra on the grant of land "foolish". Mishra had argued over the chronology of historical events to prove the Hindu parties' history of worship at the disputed place.
Mishra opposes his submission. Dhavan says it is about the argument, nothing personal, Bar and Bench reported.
CJI told me I can tear it, so I tore it: Dhavan
CJI says permission was granted to tear the pages
CJI Gogoi agreed with Dhavan and clarified in the court that he indeed had allowed the latter to tear the pages. Justice S A Nazeer rubs it in, says, "It’s widely reported."
Dhavan continues: "We have said in our plaint that whatever was destroyed belonged to us and thus relief for restitution was made."
'Tore pages with court's permission': Dhavan
On the incident of tearing of the pages in the court, Dhavan said, "The incident is going viral. But 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."
'There is no successor to right to pray': Dhavan
Resuming his arguments, Dhavan said Dharam Das was never the Shebait but a pujari. He also said that the Maha sabhas are split among themselves. The counsel for the Muslim side also said that there is no successor to right to pray. "There are successors to post, successors to a title, not to right to pray. Right to pray is a personal right," he was quoted as saying by Bar & Bench.
'Muslims have no evidence to prove they used land prior to 1856'
Presenting his submissions, senior counsel P N Mishra said, "They (Muslim side) have no evidence of use of the land or title of it prior to 1856." He also referred to some written works to prove that the site was not put to use to offer namaz prior to the 1850s. He has concluded his arguments.
Court resumes hearing Ayodhya arguments
As the court assembles for the session, Senior Counsel PN Mishra begins his submissions in the Ayodhya case.
Hindu saints seek permission to perform prayers at Ayodhya site on Diwali
A group of Hindu saints on Monday met the area divisional commissioner in Ayodhya to seek permission to perform prayers on Diwali at the disputed site. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad also met Divisional Commissioner Manoj Mishra and submitted a memorandum backing the saints demand. Meanwhile, the Babri Action Committee said that they would also offer Namaz if permission is granted by the divisional commissioner.
SC directs UP govt to provide security to state Waqf Board Chairperson
On Monday, the top court had directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide security “forthwith” to the UP Waqf Board Chairperson Zafar Ahmed Farooqui. The court took note of the communication addressed to it by the mediation committee that Farooqui apprehended threat and directed the state government to take immediate steps to provide him security.
Our dream on Ayodhya may be fulfilled shortly: Gujarat CM Vijay Rupani
On Monday, Gujarat Chief Minister Vijay Rupani had said that some movements are on in Ayodhya and it seems that “our dream (of Ram Mandir there) is going to be fulfilled shortly”. “There are movements in Ayodhya… the hearing is going to end on October 18. So now, it seems that dream of our is going to be fulfilled shortly,” Rupani had said.
SC hearing to continue after lunch
Rajeev Dhavan was given a slot post lunch to make his rejoinder arguments as the bench rose for lunch.
Will adopt submissions of Parasaran, Vaidyanathan: Vikas Singh
"Original place we are dealing with was the Ram Janmasthaan. Despite the conversion of the site, Hindus continued to uninterruptedly offer prayers there," Vikas Singh said. I will be adopting the submissions of Mr Parasaran and Vaidyanathan, Vikas Singh added as he concluded his submissions, Bar & Bench reported.
Advocate Vikas Singh begins arguments
Advocate Vikas Singh said the iron rails put up to separate Babri Masjid from the outer courtyard after 1855 riots was “only for limiting the position to which one could go”, just like in temples like Tirupati where worshippers can never touch an idol but can proceed only till a certain limit. Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain for the Nirmohi Akhara alleged discrepancies in the map produced by the Sunni Wakf Board and said they do not have knowledge of the exact situation on ground.
'Did not disturb decorum of court'
Responding to the CJI's remarks, the lawyer of All India Hindu Mahasabha said, "With great respect to the court, I have not disturbed the decorum of the court."
'We can get up and walk out': CJI Gogoi
"If these are the kind of arguments going on, then, we can just get up and walk out," CJI Ranjan Gogoi was quoted as saying by ANI after submissions made by the lawyer for All India Hindu Mahasabha in the case.
Advocate Vikas Singh presents book to justify arguments, Rajeev Dhavan opposes
Beginning his submissions, senior counsel Vikas Singh said he wishes to present a book "Ayodhya revisited" by Kunal Kishore. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan from the Sunni Wakf Board, however, took strong objection to placing on record contents from the book. Dhavan tore the pages handed to him to lodge his opposition. "You can shred it further," CJI told Dhavan, Bar & Bench reported. The paper apparently was a map illustrating the place of birth of Lord Ram.
Ayodhya hearing: Jaideep Gupta speaks on rights of Shebait
"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 psoition as the priest and this position has been accepted by others also," Jaideep Gupta said.
Advocate Jaideep Gupta begins arguments in Ayodhya case
Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta for Nirvani Akhara claimed the rights of the Shebait in Janmabhumi temple. He said late Mahant Abhiram Das was the priest of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.
14 PILs in SC against Allahabad High Court order
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar begins arguments
"I have argued on the preexisting right to pray of the Hindus all along," Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar was quoted as saying by Bar & Bench.
Destroying temple historic wrong, need reparations: Hindu defendant
On Tuesday, the temple side in the Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid dispute had told the top court that a district court in Faizabad had concluded in 1886 that a mosque was built on land considered holy by Hindus in Ayodhya and it is for the Muslim parties to show that this finding was wrong. Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for Mahant Suresh Das, one of the defendants in the suit filed by UP Sunni Central Waqf Board, said Mughal emperor Babur’s invasion of India and the alleged consequent destruction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya, was a “historic wrong” for which “reparations” are necessary.
'Ayodhya only place we call Ram Janmasthan': Vaidyanathan
Summing up his arguments, Vaidyanathan said, "This is the place we have believed for centuries as Ram Janmasthan. We cannot call any place in Delhi as Ram Janmasthan. They (Muslims) may have several other places of worship. We have only this one."
‘Questions asked only to us, not to Hindu side’: Muslim parties during Ayodhya hearing
On Monday, the Muslim parties had alleged that the CJI-led bench posed questions only to them and not to the Hindu side, news agency PTI had reported. “Your Lordship didn’t ask a question to the other side. All the questions have been asked to us only. Of course, we are answering them,” senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who represents lead petitioner M Siddiq and the All India Sunni Waqf Board in the Ayodhya case told the bench. The submission was vehemently opposed by senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, representing deity ‘Ram Lalla’, who said: “This is totally unwarranted”.
'No evidence that Muslims offered prayers at disputed site after 1934': Senior Lawyer Vaidyanathan
Continuing his submission for the Hindu side, Senior Advocate C S Vaidyanathan said, "There is some evidence that the Muslim side offered Friday prayers at the disputed site from 1857 till 1934. No evidence that they offered any prayer after that. But the Hindu side continued to offer prayers on the site. They say we tried to dispossess them. Why would we if we did not believe in the janmasthan? The submission only reinforces our claim."
Ayodhya verdict expected before CJI Gogoi's retirement
Hearings resume Monday after the week-long Dussehra break, and the judgment is expected before the Chief Justice of India retires on November 17.
More curbs in Ayodhya as hearings end today
The latest order prohibits the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in the area without permission. It also bars boating in the district, and the sale and manufacture of fire crackers. It states that shops and godowns can stay open, with permission, only in specific areas identified by the district administration. The order has been sent to all senior officials of the district.
Curbs in Ayodhya to ensure safety, security of tourists: DM
On the restrictions in Ayodhya, District Magistrate Anuj K Jha had earlier posted on Twitter: “The order has been issued considering safety and security of Ayodhya and those visiting here…” In another post, Jha wrote: “I must add that already there is another order in force since 31.08.2019 covering aspects of unlawful assemblies and undesirable activities. The order dated 12.10.2019 has been issued to cover a couple of points which were not there in the earlier order.”
SC refuses to entertain intervention plea of Hindu Maha Sabha
The top court refused to consider an intervention application of one of the parties, the Hindu Maha Sabha, in the case. "We have already asked all the intervenors to apportion the time accordingly", Bar & Bench quoted the CJI as saying.
Hearing will be completed today, says CJI
"Hearing in this matter is going to be completed today," CJI Gogoi said.
'Enough is enough': CJI says arguments must end at 5 pm today
Resuming the hearing, the apex court today made it clear that the arguments will be concluded at 5 pm today. “Enough is enough”, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said.
SC set to wrap up arguments on Ayodhya case ahead of CJI's retirement
Twenty-seven years after the Babri Masjid demolition, the Supreme Court is set to wrap up arguments in the case which changed the country’s politics, and deliver a verdict before Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi retires on November 17. If not, the case will have to be heard afresh.