The hearing in the Ayodhya case is progressing at the Supreme Court of India.
The Ayodhya case is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer.
Hearings had commenced on August 6, with arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. In the following hearings, submissions were also made on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla.
Below are live updates from today's (Aug. 21, 2019) hearing in the Ayodhya case:
- Day 9 hearing commences; CS Vaidyanathan resumes his arguments.
- CS Vaidyanathan citing precedents on adverse possession and ownership. "There has never been any adverse possession in this case. Hindus have always expressed their desire to worship at this place", Vaidyanathan.
- Discussion now happening on how question of adverse possession will arise only if the property is alienable.
- The property itself being birthplace of Ram and a deity, it is res extra commercium. Thus, there is no question of anyone putting up a mosque there and claiming adverse possession, CS Vaidyanathan argues.
- There cannot be a destruction of an idol or temple. Even if there is no temple, the place itself has sanctity which will always remain, CS Vaidyanathan.
- The property is res extra commercium and cannot be transferred, sold, alienated or dealt with in any manner, argues Vaidyanathan.
- In Hindu law unlike in Mohammaden law, a person in the capacity of trustee or Shabait cannot alienate the property, submits Vaidyanathan.
- Discussion happening now on whether property can be alienated and when the same can be done.
- Whether a mosque is a juristic person or not? Vaidyanathan citing 1940 judgment in Masjid Shahid Ganj case. He says that judgment never answered that question conclusively, says Vaidyanathan.
- This place due to the very fact that Ram was born here has divinity and needs to be treated differently, CS Vaidyanathan.
- Bench rises for lunch, hearing to resume at 2 pm.
- Post Lunch Session
- Bench resumes hearing. CJI Ranjan Gogoi asks CS Vaidyanathan to close his arguments.
- Their suits having been dismissed as time barred, how can they grant relief to them in my suit when most of the findings are in my favour, Vaidyanathan asks.
- The trial was by a Full Bench of High Court. Supreme Court should be circumspect while interfering with the findings of High Court, Vaidyanathan concludes arguments.
- Senior Advocate PN Mishra commences arguments.
- PN Mishra is making submissions on behalf of Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti.
- Are you party to the suit, asks CJI Ranjan Gogoi. "I am. I am defendant no. 20 in suit 4", replies PN Mishra.
- I will argue that based on our doctrine, tenets and beliefs, it is a temple. I will start with Atharva Veda, submits PN Mishra.
- It is our case that Babur never built a mosque there and Hindus have been worshipping at that place all along, submits PN Mishra.
- PN Mishra relying on Skanda Purana, Valmiki Ramayana to argue on the exact location of Ram Janmasthan.
- Hindu texts as the basis for faith is not disputed; what we really need are objective parameters, documentary evidence for the temple, Bench tells PN Mishra.
- The bench is more interested in objective evidence than references to scriptures.
- https://barandbench.com/ayodhya-hearing-live-updates-from-supreme-court-day-9/