OPEN APP
Home / News / India /  SC asks Nirmohi Akhara to prove Ayodhya claim

SC asks Nirmohi Akhara to prove Ayodhya claim

SC asked a litigant appearing on behalf of Ram Lalla to prove that the disputed land in Ayodhya belonged to Ram.kuldeep singh/mintPremium
SC asked a litigant appearing on behalf of Ram Lalla to prove that the disputed land in Ayodhya belonged to Ram.kuldeep singh/mint

  • The court asked senior advocate K. Parasaran if a question of this nature about birth of a religious figure has ever arisen in any court
  • After discussions among themselves the bench gave Jain time to prepare and gather secondary evidence to prove his case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, on the second day of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case hearings on Wednesday asked a litigant appearing on behalf of Ram Lalla, or the infant Ram, to prove that the disputed piece of land belonged to Ram.

In the absence of documentary evidence, senior advocate K. Parasaran, appearing on behalf of the deity Ram Lalla, replied that “the unshakable faith of millions can’t be worth nothing. Even the Valmiki Ramayana mentioned Ayodhya as Ram Janmabhoomi."

He added that proving the birthplace of Ram with documentary evidence is difficult.

The court then asked Prasaran if a question of this nature about the birth of a religious figure has ever arisen in any court—“whether issues like birth of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem have been questioned and dealt with by any court in the world." The advocate said he will check and inform the court.

The five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, and comprising justices S.A. Bopde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, also asked senior advocate Sushil K. Jain, appearing for the Nirmohi Akhara, a religious denomination, to submit oral or documentary evidence to establish his claim that the Nirmohi Akhara were in possession of the “Ram Janmabhoomi".

Jain then cited lower court orders and judgements and gave an account of the ways he had established the Akhara’s claims before the lower court. The court, not satisfied with this, pressed for revenue records or other official documents. Jain replied that all the records were lost after a robbery took place in 1982 at the structure.

After discussions among themselves the bench gave Jain time to prepare and gather secondary evidence to prove his case. Chandrachud also guided Jain to classify the arguments with respect to his claims and evidence available.

“Our claims of ownership stems from our possession. We had been in possession for the longest time," Jain said earlier, adding that his suit is for the possession of the inner courtyard and the “Ram Janmabhoomi".

The hearing continues on Thursday.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters
* Enter a valid email
* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.
Close
Recommended For You
×
Edit Profile
Get alerts on WhatsApp
Set Preferences My ReadsFeedbackRedeem a Gift CardLogout