Ayodhya hearing in SC: ‘Suit by Ramlalla, Ramjanmabhoomi was socio-political vehicle for Nyas’https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-to-hear-ayodhya-case-for-an-hour-more-daily-from-monday-6013324/

Ayodhya hearing in SC: ‘Suit by Ramlalla, Ramjanmabhoomi was socio-political vehicle for Nyas’

The arguments remained inconclusive and will resume on September 23.

Supreme Court, Ayodhya case, Ayodhya case hearing, Babri Masjid dispute case, ramjanmabhoomi, India news, Indian express
Dhavan claimed that the “purpose and direction” of the suit number 5 “is to say remove all those (existing structures), destroy to the extent required”. (File photo)

The Sunni Central Waqf Board on Friday sought to highlight the political nature of the Ayodhya Ram temple movement and said the suit filed by the deity Ramlalla and the birthplace Ramjanmabhoomi in 1989 was only a “socio-political vehicle” for the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas, which was created in December 1985.

“Thus it is clear that Suit no. 5 was a socio-political vehicle for the Nyas, pointing to the future and trying to reiterate the past to serve the future,” Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Board and one of the main petitioners M Siddiq, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi. The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, is hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court dividing the disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya into three equal parts.

Suit number 5 was instituted in 1989 by Bhagwan Sri Ramlalla Virajman at Sri Ramjanmabhoomi, Ayodhya, and Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhoomi, Ayodhya, and they were represented Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a retired judge of Allahabad High Court as “next friend”. The prayer in the suit was for a decree or declaration to the effect that the entire premises of Ramjanmabhoomi belong to the plaintiff deities and for an injunction against others from placing any obstruction in the construction of the new temple after demolishing and removing existing buildings and structures.

Dhavan claimed that the “purpose and direction” of the suit number 5 “is to say remove all those (existing structures), destroy to the extent required”.

Advertising

He contended that the only movement that followed the creation of the Nyas was the ‘karseva’ for the temple and that it was an “entirely political movement”. The Viswa Hindu Parishad had collected consecrated stones for this from across the country during the movement, he said, adding “this can hardly be called consecration because it led to the illegal destruction” of the objects of worship at the site.

He also questioned making Ramjanmabhoomi a petitioner, saying “the real reason for using the Janmabhoomi as a vehicle was to create a juristic personality to canvas two regimes —- the idol regime and bhoomi regime”. The consequences of bhoomi becoming a juristic person would be that no one else would be able to claim title, he said, and that only those consequences as applicable to the idol as a juristic person should apply in the case of the ‘bhoomi’ too.

He also took the bench through translations of inscriptions found on the Babri Masjid before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, and said they proved that the mosque was built by Mughal emperor Babur’s commander Mir Baqi.

The arguments remained inconclusive and will resume on September 23.

For latest coverage on Haryana and Maharashtra Elections, log on to IndianExpress.com. We bring you the fastest assembly election 2019 updates from each constituency in both the states.