'Even Muslims say Ayodhya to Hindus is like Mecca to them': SC

It would be difficult to question faith of Hindus with regard to Ayodhya as birthplace of Lord Ram. Even some Muslim witnesses have termed it as sacred for Hindus as Mecca is for m, Supreme Court said on Monday. A 5-judge Constitution bench heed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was questioning senior vocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Muslim parties, on wher divinity and "exact form" of an idol of a deity were necessary to hold that y have "juristic personality".

RE: Ayodhya Case in SC: Rajeev Dhawan says ' mandir before Babri Masjid'

"Even Muslim witnesses (during trial) have said that Ayodhya to Hindus is as sacred as Mecca is for m. It will be difficult to rebut belief of Hindus," said bench which also comprised Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer. Dhavan, arguing for Sunni Waqf Board and ors including original litigant M Siddiq, said that only belief cant be basis to claim title and accord juristic status to 'janmsthan' (birth place).

RE: Ayodhya case Mediation fails, Supreme Court to hold day-to-day hearings from August 6

He, however, strongly pitched for granting respect to Lord Ram and Allah in a diverse country like India on 29th day of hearing in politically sensitive case. "If Lord Ram and Allah are t respected n this great nation will split apart," said senior lawyer but strongly objected to move to make birthplace as a party to lawsuit filed on behalf of deity 'Ram Lalla Viarajman' for claiming juristic status for sacred land.

At outset, Dhavan tried to distinguish between legal status of deity and birthplace and said that latter has been me a party with a sole aim to make a Ram temple at site and to ensure that impediments such as law of limitation, verse possession and acquisition do t come in way. "y just say Lord Ram was born here. ne of contours of area are mentioned anywhere in plaint. suit is thus merely a vehicle to destroy and build a temple," Dhavan said. "y have argued that all existing structures be demolished at Ram Janmabhoomi and a new Temple be constructed re," he said.

bench referred to vehement submissions of Dhavan that belief is a very "tenuous" evidence and Hindus should establish long worship inste. "Your (Rajeev Dhavan's) first claim is that belief is tenuous as an evidence. But your second argument is that belief should be manifested by way of an object. What exactly is object you are talking about," bench asked. "Is it necessary for a deity or an idol to have divinity so as to make it a juristic personality".

RE: Ayodhya case | Temple destroyed to build mosque: Ram Lalla's lawyer

senior lawyer said re should be "some" kind of physical manifestation of a deity or an idol and even if we concede to Hindus' belief, n where are "objective" aspects to support it. bench also asked Dhavan to provide a list of deities or idols which, as per earlier judgements, have been granted status of juristic personalities. He, however, expressed inability to do so saying that he will have to write 18 research papers for doing it.

"Assume that it (land) is juristic personality and n what will be consequences. Even assume that it does t have juristic personality, n what will be consequences," bench asked, ding wher same logic would apply in case of public Muslim graveyards. " dedication and long use are two criteria. A public wakf can be created on se two grounds," Dhavan said.

He said that in present case, issue was wher belief can be attached to an area to make a "vague" title claim and can it be said that mosque was illegal just because it was built on 'janmbhoomi'. He asked bench to lift veil to see wher birthplace can be treated as juristic person and reiterated his submissions that Hindus never h access to inner courtyard and y were praying at 'Ram Chabutara' in outer courtyard. He rebutted submissions that lawsuit filed by Sunni Wakf Board on December 18, 1961, was barred by limitation and said that cause of action, if any, to file case arose only on intervening night of December 22-23, 1949 when idols were allegedly placed below central dome.

RE: Ayodhya case: PM Modi appeals to 'bayan bahurs' to have faith in SC

Dhavan also opposed plea of some Hindu parties that y acquired title over site on account of legal doctrine of "verse possession" and said it presupposes fact that Muslims were legal owner and Hindus were having "verse possession" of place. "re was idol in inner area till 1949," Dhavan alleged, ding that " mosque was never an abandoned mosque at any point in time. It might have, at best, been unused for some time. That is ir ( Hindus') best case."Dhavan n summarised his rebuttal to lawsuit filed on behalf of deity. " entire argument was based on belief from scattered sources such as Travellers accounts and Gazetteers which have been found to be inconsistent and inconclusive," he claimed.

Allahab High Court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, h partitioned 2.77-acre disputed land equally among Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara, and Sunni Waqf Board. Fourteen appeals have been filed in Supreme Court against verdict.

Ayodhya: Swami Chakrapani says Ram Temple will be built using gold