scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Friday, May 14, 2021

Ayodhya hearing: Pictures of deities found at disputed site, Ramlalla’s counsel tells SC

On the seventh day of the hearing, the senior lawyer read out the report of the commissioner who was appointed to inspect the disputed site in 1950. The report describes the presence of pillars with images of Lord Shiva, said the lawyer to the top court.

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi |
Updated: August 16, 2019 9:27:39 pm
Thrice Supreme Court said: Don’t disturb land until suits are over Babri Masjid in the background

The counsel for Ramlalla Virajman, one of the parties in the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid case, Friday told the Supreme Court that several pictures of deities were found on pillars at the disputed land in Ayodhya.

Senior counsel Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity ‘Ramlalla Virajaman’, placed maps and images of the Babri mosque before the court and said the pillars reveal the pictures of Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva and a younger Lord Ram.

Last hearing: Accounts of foreign travellers, historians establish birthplace claim, SC told

“No mosque will ordinarily contain pillars of this nature,” Vaidyanathan told a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

On the seventh day of the hearing, the senior lawyer read out the report of the commissioner who was appointed to inspect the disputed site in 1950. The report describes the presence of pillars with images of Lord Shiva, said the lawyer to the top court.

Read | Land itself a deity, so can’t have joint possession, Ramlalla’s counsel tells SC

When asked whether the structure was built as a mosque or used as a mosque, the senior counsel responded: “With such images, it can’t be a mosque as it goes against tenets of Islam. Just because prayers are offered on a street, it doesn’t mean the street will get dedicated as a mosque.”

 

Taking the court through evidence found during the excavation by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) at the disputed site, Vaidyanathan said the archeological evidence shows there existed at the disputed site a massive structure, construction on which had started as back as 2nd century BC and preponderance of probability shows it was a Ram temple.

Justice D Y Chandrachud also pointed out that a grave was also found and asked the senior counsel for interpretation. Responding to the court, Vaidyanathan said that the grave belonged to a much later period.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.

  • The Indian Express website has been rated GREEN for its credibility and trustworthiness by Newsguard, a global service that rates news sources for their journalistic standards.
0 Comment(s) *
* The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
x