Difficult for Wakf to question belief on Ram’s birthplace: Supreme Court

Dhavan replied: “But where is Ramjanmabhoomi? It’s simply a creation of the 19th century.” He added that mere belief is not enough to claim title and accord juristic personality to the place.

Reiterating that Ram deserves respect, Dhavan said, “If both Ram and Allah are not respected, then this nation, which has more diversity than any other, will splinter apart.”

The bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, and also comprising Justices S A Bobde, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, is hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010, verdict of Allahabad High Court ordering a three-way division of the disputed area.

Questioning the temple side’s claim that Ramjanmabhoomi had divinity attached to it and is also a juristic personality, Dhavan said, “Ramjanmabhoomi as a juristic personality was a special purpose vehicle to get rid of the past temple and build a grand temple for future by and through the (Ramjanmabhoomi) Nyas, and to get rid of the shebait and put management of the temple in sociopolitical hands of the Sangh Parivar.”

Dhavan had earlier conceded that idols of Hindu deities were worshipped in Ram Chabutra on the outer courtyard, and that the Nirmohi Akhara had shebait rights to it.

A shebait under Hindu law is entrusted with the task of maintaining and preserving an idol and its property.

Pointing to problems if land was to be treated as a juristic personality, Dhavan said merely because a land had divinity attached to it will not make it immune from acquisition.

Dhavan also questioned the Hindu side’s reliance on discovery of a ‘parikrama’ path around the now-demolished mosque as proof that something which they regarded as divine existed there. “All witnesses (who spoke about it) have given different descriptions of parikrama,” he submitted. “Some say it was in south, some say in west, some say it was all around…claim that the place was divine will not stand when witnesses have given different versions of the parikrama.”

He said Muslims offered daily prayers at the site till December 22-23, 1949, and until then there was no idol in the “inner area”.

The submission was apparently in response to the court pointing out on September 19 that oral evidence had come on record that there was an idol at the ‘garbh grih’ (sanctum sanctorum), believed to be the birthplace of Ram below the central dome of Babri Masjid even before 1949, and that Hindus had prayed to it.

According to the Board, idols were allegedly placed inside Babri Masjid by alleged trespassers on the night intervening December 22-23, 1949.

Dhavan said, “There’s a difference between saying no prayers (were held) and saying it was abandoned. Once a mosque, always a mosque. This is not abandonment —- at best, it was not used.”

He said there is “no proof” of any Hindu structure at the site other than the Ram Chabutara. “We were in possession, we had title,” he asserted.

He contended that the law of limitation would also apply to deities, and that the legislature ought to have made if it wanted to make an exclusion. He said every idol cannot be a juristic person and referred to examples to illustrate this.

Intervening, Justice Bobde said that “there can be a deity without an idol” and referred to Chidambaram, where the sky is worshipped.

Dhavan replied, “Something must be there to convert a belief into a religious practice.”

Dhavan also challenged the Shia Wakf Board’s challenge of a 1946 decision by which the Shia board’s claim over Babri Masjid was rejected, and said they “slept over” their right and wondered how they can now say the law of limitation will not apply to them.