‘Muslims abandoned Babri Masjid after 1949,’ claims Nirmohi Akhara; lays full claim to site

New Delhi: The day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case commenced in the Supreme Court from Tuesday after the mediation efforts to find an amicable settlement to the contentious matter failed.

The hearing is being heard by a five-judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which also include Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer.

On August 2, the three-member mediation panel, headed by former SC judge FMI Kalifulla, had submitted their report, which stated that the mediation proceedings which had taken place for nearly four months were unable to result in any final settlement between the petitioners in the case.

‘Babri Masjid ceased to be a mosque’- The counsel for Nirmohi Akhara further added that the absence of provision of Wazu at the disputed land indicated that prayers were not offered since 1885 and hence the structure had ceased to be a mosque long time ago. Wazu is a ritual by which Muslims wash hands and body parts before Namaz.

‘Muslims abandoned Babri Masjid after 1949′ – Nirmohi Akhara told the top court today that Muslims had stopped daily prayers at Babri Masjid on the disputed land in 1934 and had “completely abandoned” the structure from December 16, 1949. Akhara’s counsel advocate Jain claimed in the court, “The idols were placed inside the mosque on the intervening night of Dec 22-23, 1949.”

Can’t be considered a mosque if no Namaz offered’ – Nirmohi Akhara on Tuesday argued in the apex court that a place cannot be considered as a mosque of no namaz is offered at the site. Advocate Jain, arguing on behalf of Akhara, said, “We have staked our claims since 1934. No namaz has ever been offered there.”

‘Muslims offered only Friday prayers, not daily prayers’- Citing a High Court verdict, Nirmohi Akhara told the Supreme Court that from 1934 to 1949, Muslims had been offering only Friday prayers at the disputed structure. The counsel for Nirmohi Akhara said that even though Muslims only offered Friday prayers on the structure, they had tried to prove in the court they used to offer daily prayers. Nirmohi Akhara also noted that Hindu parties performed daily prayers at the site. However, the petitioner claimed that Muslims offered regular prayers before 1934, as per an HC verdict.

Minor skirmish between CJi and advocate Dhawan – A minor skirmish broke out between CJI Gogoi and advocate Rajeev Dhawan, who is representing a key Muslim petitioner in the case, Mohammad Siddiqui. When Dhawan got up to say something, CJI told to respond only when his chance comes. To this, Dhawan said, “I hope I get a chance to argue.” CJI shot back saying, “Why? Do you have any doubt? Mr. Dhavan, pls maintain the decorum of the court. Please keep in mind that you are the officer of the court.” Dhawan said that he was only answering the query by the Lordships, to which the CJI said, “There are ways to do it.”

‘No Muslims allowed to enter structure since 1934’ – The counsel for petitioner Nirmohi Akhara told the SC bench that no Muslims were allowed to enter the structure since 1934 and it has been in exclusive possession of the Akhara. He told the court that the Akhara was in possession of the inner courtyard and Ram Janmasthan for hundreds of years. The counsel added, “Outer courtyard having ‘Sita Rasoi’, ‘Chabutra’, ‘Bhandar Grah’ were in our possession and it was never a part of the dispute in any case.”

Petitioner Nirmohi Akhara lays full claim to 2.77 acre-land – Senior Advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, argued that the suit of the plaintiff Nirmohi Akhara was confined to the inner courtyard of the disputed land in Ayodhya. He said that its suit is basically for belongings, possession and management rights. The petitioner laid full claim to the core disputed 2.77 acre Ram Janambhumi. Jain said that in 1989, the Nirmohi Akhara had filed a lawsuit against the Uttar Pradesh state government, stating that they had been worshipping the deities installed at a temple at the disputed land since “ancient times.” At the time of filing the lawsuit, Nirmohi Akhara had requested the Centre to hand over the management of the temple to them.

CJI rejects live streaming plea – CJI Ranjan Gogoi on Tuesday rejected the plea seeking live streaming of the Ayodhya hearing. No audio recording or live streaming of the hearing would take place. A lawyer, on behalf of KN Govindacharya, who had filed the plea for the live streaming of the hearing, urged the Supreme Cort to allow audio recording of the proceedings or at least prepare the transcripts. However, the plea was turned down.

Ayodhya hearing begins – The daily hearings in the Ayodhya title dispute case commenced in the Supreme Court today. The court asked petitioner Sources have said that the CJI-led Constitution bench is expected to deliver a verdict by November before CJI Ranjan Gogoi retires.

What is the case about? – The apex court has 14 appeals filed before it against the 2010 Allahabad High Court order, which was delivered in four civil suits pertaining to the case. The Allahabad HC had ruled that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya should be divided equally among the three parties – the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The case dates back to December 6, 1992, when right-wing activists had demolished the Babri Masjid, which was built at the disputed land in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi.

9:30 am: ‘Need 20 days to argue the case’ – Following the August 2 order, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing on behalf of a Muslim party, told the court that he would need 20 days to argue several issues related to the case in detail and that the court should not curtail the hearing. He also raised quite a few technical issues, to which the apex court bench told him, “We know there are many aspects and we will deal with all these aspects. Let the hearing start.”

Mediation efforts failed’ – The mediation panel comprised Kalifulla, senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu and spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar. The court had asked the mediation panel on July 18 to inform the bench of the outcome of the hearing on July 31. The SC bench had referred the matter for mediation on March 8.

SC orders for day-to-day hearing – In its order on August 2, the apex court had ruled, “The hearing which will be on a day-to-day basis until the arguments are concluded will start with the appeals arising out of the two suits. The learned counsel(s)…in the appeals arising out of the aforesaid suits may, for the convenience of the court, indicate the pleadings and the evidence on which they propose to rely so that the officials of the Registry can keep the said documents ready for perusal of the court.”