A five-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on Wednesday ended the marathon hearing of the decades-old Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. Before wrapping up the case, the bench gave the contesting parties three days to file written notes on ‘moulding of relief’ or narrowing down the issues on which the court is required to adjudicate in this case.
The Constitution bench has heard the case for 40 days, the top court’s second longest oral hearing in its history. The bench, which also comprises justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, is hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 judgement of the Allahabad high court which ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya.
The top court is expected to deliver its ruling by November 17 when Chief Justice Gogoi retires. Here are the 10 top arguments made by the Muslim and Hindu parties to the dispute.
Hindu parties
1. A temple was built centuries ago, possibly by Emperor Vikramaditya and rebuilt around 11th century. The temple was destroyed by Babur in 1526 or possibly by Aurangzeb in the 17th century
2. Historical texts such as Skanda Purana and later additions, travellers stories and gazettes) show that people have a belief that Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Ram
3. Islamic texts on the mosque are in violation of the Holy Koran and Hadith
4. Witness evidence shows that the belief has existed for centuries that Ayodhya is the birth place of Lord Ram
5. An ASI report proves the existence of a temple and its destruction
Muslim parties
6. Mosque has been present at the disputed site since 1528. Physical existence of the mosque is proven by records that it was attacked in 1855, 1934 and a trespass case filed in 1949
7. British government recognised the grant given by Babur, which had been continued by nawabs
8. Various documents of the 1885 suit recognised the existence of mosque. Muslims were in possession of the place throughout and offered Eid prayers till 22, 23 December 1949
9. Insisted that views of historians and mentions in gazettes about the existence of the mosque was a weak argument. Wants the court to rely on the Hindu practice of praying at Janambhumi as evidence.
10. Contested ASI report saying that its conclusion that a temple structure existed under the mosque was an interpretation and not a scientific fact.
First Published:
Oct 16, 2019 16:12 IST
Source: HindustanTimes