Follow Us:
Monday, January 20, 2020

Ayodhya hearing: Both religions consider Ayodhya as birthplace of Ram, SC told

Justice Bhushan told Parasaran that one of the plaintiffs in the suit was janmasthan - birthplace — and wondered whether a place a could be a juristic person.

New Delhi | Updated: August 9, 2019 6:52:50 am
Ayodhya hearing, Ayodhya case, SC on Ayodhya, supreme court hearing on ayodhya, ayodhya ram janmbhoomi, ayodhya heraing, ayodhya land in supreme court, ramjanmbhoomi babri masjid, indian express news Rising for the day on Thursday, the bench said it will assemble again on Friday morning to hear Prasaran, who is yet to conclude his arguments.

Both Hindus and Muslim parties to the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute consider Ayodhya as the birthplace of Lord Ram and there is, thus, no difference of opinion regarding this, the counsel for Ramlalla Virajman told the Supreme Court on Thursday.

Appearing for Ramlalla, senior advocate K Parasaran told the five-judge Constitution bench that””janmasthan (birthplace””””need not mean just the spot, and can mean the entire surroundings”.

Led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, the bench comprises Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan, and S A Nazeer

Read | Has question on birth of a prophet, Jesus come up in any court, asks SC

Parasaran said he had “serious objections” to the September 30, 2010, verdict of the Allahabad High Court, which divided the disputed 2.77 acres into three and awarded a third each to the Nirmohi Akhara sect; Sunni Central Wakf Board, Uttar Pradesh; and the idol Ramlalla Virajman.

Justice Bhushan told Parasaran that one of the plaintiffs in the suit was janmasthan – birthplace — and wondered whether a place a could be a juristic person.

“It’s controversial, but I will present my arguments”” the counsel replied. He said there are temples in which the Shiv ling is worshiped.

“But what about things other than idols? Can they be considered juristic persons too”” Justice Bhushan asked.

Parasaran replied that presence of idol is not the only test for this. In the Rig Ved, he said, the Sun is considered a deity, although it has no idol and is a juristic person. Intervening, Justice Bobde pointed out that the Uttarakhand High Court had recently held some rivers as juristic persons.

Justice Chandrachud asked Parasaran whether a source of worship can also be considered a juristic person. “Can a source of worship itself become a juridical person? There are pleadings that not only the idols, the source of the divinity can also be a subject of devotion. If that is so, can the place from which such divinity flows can also be a juristic person”” he asked.

Parasaran said he would answer the query in due course and went on to read from the High Court’s verdict.

Meanwhile, in an apparent bid to fast-track hearing in the case, the bench on Thursday indicated that it will sit for all five days, including on Mondays and Fridays. Normally, Mondays and Fridays are reserved for miscellaneous matters — fresh cases and those on which notices have been issued. Cases referred to larger benches or the Constitution bench are usually taken up on the other three days.

Rising for the day on Thursday, the bench said it will assemble again on Friday morning to hear Prasaran, who is yet to conclude his arguments.

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App

0 Comment(s) *
* The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement