#AyodhyaHearing: Nirmohi Akhada doesn't have 'evidence' of Ram Janmbhoomi possession
The Nirmohi Akhada, one of the three parties which is fighting for the disputed land in Ayodhya, told Supreme Court on Wednesday that evidence which showed it possessed the property got stolen years ago. The top court started daily hearings of the sensitive matter on Tuesday after mediation failed. To note, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is heading the constitutional bench. Here are more details.
Backstory: The disputed property was divided equally among three parties
The Ayodhya dispute pertains to 2.77 acres of land, where the 16th-century mosque Babri Masjid stood. In 1992, Hindu activists razed it claiming it was built on the ruins of a temple where Lord Rama took human form. In 2010, Allahabad High Court divided it equally among all three parties: Nirmohi Akhada, Ram Lalla, and Sunni Waqf Board. All the parties then approached SC.
SC thought mediation might solve the issue. It didn't
Since the dispute is highly communal, the CJI-led bench referred it for mediation earlier this year. Retired SC Judge FMI Kalifulla headed the panel, but it failed to bring all stakeholders on one page. The proceedings ended on July 31, making way for SC hearings.
Nirmohi Akhada is demanding full control on the land
On Tuesday, senior lawyer Sushil Jain, appearing for Nirmohi Akhada, made a case explaining why the body should be allowed to manage and control the entire piece of land. Jain said Muslims haven't been allowed to enter the place since 1934. When the hearing resumed earlier in the day, Jain said Nirmohi Akhada's suit was filed within the time limitation.
Nirmohi Akhada wants land but couldn't furnish evidence
Further, Jain reiterated the Nirmohi Akhada was seeking complete possession of the inner courtyard. "Our claims of ownership stems from our possession. We had been in possession for the longest time. Obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced Nirmohi Akhara to file the civil suits," Jain said. When the bench asked Jain to produce evidence, he replied said it was stolen in 1982.
Courtroom exchange: When bench demanded proof, here's what Jain replied
Further, CJI Gogoi asked Jain to submit oral and documentary evidence to support Nirmohi Akhada's claim in two hours. When Justice DY Chandrachud, asked for original documents, Jain said they are quoted in HC's judgment.
Meanwhile, Ram Lalla's advocate said faith of millions is evidence
Subsequently, Senior Advocate K Parasaran began submissions for Ram Lalla. "Faith of millions of worshippers that the particular place was where Ram was born and the temple was there, is itself evidence of the same," Parasaran told the court. He claimed it was mentioned at least three times in Valmiki Ramayana that Lord Rama was born in Ayodhya.
"Has Jesus Christ's birth place been questioned?"
Lawyer K Parasharan, appearing for plaintiff Gopal Visharad, submits to SC at least 3 times in Ramayana, it's mentioned Sri Ram was born in Ayodhya. SC asks, "whether Christ was born in Bethlehem?Has such a question ever arisen in any court?"Parasaran answered he'll have to check pic.twitter.com/RUCo9SaG3K— ANI (@ANI) August 7, 2019