Supreme Court: Is there an Ayodhya-like case in world?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought to know if there was any such case like Ayodhya which has been decided by a court in the world.

“Has a similar question arose before a court in the world say, whether Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem,” asked Justice S.A. Bobde — one of the five judges on a Constitution Bench — hearing a batch of cross petitions challenging the Allahabad high court judgment on the title of disputed site at Ayodhya.

The Allahabad high court by its September 30, 2019, verdict divided the disputed Babri Masjid–Ram Janmabh-oomi site in three parts giving two parts to the deity of Ram Lalla and a Hindu sect Nirmohi Akhara and one part to Sunni Waqf Board.

Besides Justice Bobde, the five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi also includes Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer.

Appearing for the deity of Ram Lalla, senior counsel K. Parasaran told the court that the worshipers of Lord Ram believe that he was born at Ayodhya and have faith that the Janma Asthan is his birthplace.

“The unshakeable faith itself is an evidence that Janma Asthan is a place where Lord Rama was born”, Mr Parasaran told the court.

Rejecting the Sunni Waqf Board’s argument that the placing of Lord Rama, Sita and Lakshmana’s idols on the intervening night of December 22/23, 1949, was an act of continuing wrong, Mr Parasaran said that it was a one time act and what happened thereafter – taking over the management of the dispute site, appointing receiver in 1950 and attachment in 1959 was “continuing consequences”.

“It was not continuing wrong but an act with continuing consequences”, Mr Parasaran told the court.

Telling the court that his entire case would be founded on documentary evidence and not oral evidence, Mr Parasaran mentioned the reference of Janmabhoomi in Valmiki Ramayana. He also referred to report of Faizabad district administration to buttress his case.

At the outset when Parasaran rose to address the court on behalf of deity of Lord Rama, Chief Justice Gogoi asked him that he can advance his arguments while sitting.

Thanking the CJI Gogoi and other judges for their “generosity”, Mr Parasaran declining the offer said, “I am constrained by the tradition of lawyers addressing the court while standing. If I can follow the tradition, I will appear before the court. If I can’t, I will not appear.”

Mr Parasaran – one of the senior most and eminent lawyer of the country - was attorney general of India during the term of late Prime Ministers Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi’s governments.

Mr Parasaran will continue his arguments on Thursday.

Earlier resuming his arguments, senior counsel Sushil Kumar Jain – appearing for the Hindu sect Nirmohi Akhara – told the court that no body – both the litigants for the temple or mosque – could ownership of the disputed 2.77 acres of disputed site. He focused his arguments saying that Nirmohi Akhara was well within the 6-year limitation period in filing the suit challenging its dispossession of the “inner courtyard” of the disputed site, where the idols are placed.

The high court has held that Akhara was barred by limitation to move the court against its dispossession of disputed site and the appointment of receiver.

The Faizabad city magistrate after taking over the management of the inner courtyard on January 5, 1950, appointed Baba Priya Datt Ram as receiver. He was later replaced by Jamuna Prasad.

In the post lunch session, CJI Gogoi asked Mr Jain to advance his arguments backed by documentary evidence like revenue record, whether ground revenue was paid. Mr Jain was asked to advance evidence to back his claim to the possession of disputed site.

Nirmohi Akhara had on Tuesday claimed that it was in possession of the disputed site since time immemorial and by virtue of sheer possession, the disputed site belongs to it.

Finding that the evidence that Mr Jain was advancing was scattered, the court asked him to place his claims backed by evidence in a tabulated form. He was told that he would asked to advance his case after the completion of arguments by Mr Parasaran.