The Supreme Court today set a new deadline to complete the Ayodhya case hearing. The apex court asked all the parties to the dispute to complete the debate by 17 October. Earlier, the Supreme Court had set the date of 18 October to complete the debate. Hearing in the case continued in the Supreme Court for the 37th day. On Friday, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan started his arguments on behalf of the Muslim side.
Justice Bobde asked whether divinity was imposed on anything in Islam. To this, the Muslim side said that this happened in both religions and that the mosque was an example of this in Islam.
Justice Bobde said that one always heard that there was nothing like this; “you worship Allah and not any thing“; we want to see if any institution has considered the mosque to be revered because one comes there only to worship Allah”.
Dhavan said that the Hindu parties accused Babur of breaking the temple and building a mosque, but Babur was not a destroyer. The mosque was built by Mir Baqi at the behest of a Sufi, the lawyer claimed. Dhavan read out a famous line Allama Mohammed Iqbal in support of his claim: ‘Hai Ram ke wajūd par Hindostan ko nāz; ahl-e-nazar samajhte hain us ko Imam-e-Hind (India is proud of the existence of Rama; those with the right vision regard him as the imam of India),’ much as Iqbal lived on this earth centuries after both Babur and Mir Baqi were gone.
During the hearing, Justice Chandrachud asked whether there was any evidence that Babur had given any financial aid to Babri Masjid? Dhavan denied that there was any kind of evidence thereof. He said that the evidence of the temple claimants did not exist either.
Muslims were compensated after the attack on the mosque: Dhavan
Dhavan said that in 1855, a Nihang came to the plot now disputed and he worshipped Guru Govind Singh there and marked it thus. However, everything was removed later. The British governor-general and Faizabad deputy commissioner had given rent-free villages for maintenance of the mosque and then revenue villages as per Babur’s decree, Dhavan claimed. Due to financial support, the other party’s adversity position could not be achieved, the advocate for the Muslim side said.
The Nirmohi Akhara, one of the Hindu parties to the dispute, however, claims that the Nihang Dhavan referred to was a member of their order and that he had worshipped Lord Rama at the spot. This, in fact, is among the prime reasons that make them a claimant of the site in Ayodhya.
Dhavan said that after a previous attack on the mosque in the year 1934, compensation was given to the Muslims to make up for the loss. On 10 December 1884, a Bairagi Fakir entered the mosque building and sat down. When he did not come out despite the administration’s warning, he was forcibly removed and his flag was also uprooted, Dhavan said.
The advancing of the date implies that there are only four days of hearing left in the case.
Previously, on Thursday, the Hindu side had placed its arguments in the Supreme Court. The counsel was presented first by Ram Lalla Virajman’s lawyer; then by Nirmohi Akhara and later by Gopal Singh Visharad.
Advocate Sushil Jain started the debate on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara. He told the court that now this hearing has become like a T20 match. The court expressed displeasure over his comment. Also said that you were given four and a half days. Now you have to answer, so now you are saying 20-20? So was your last argument a test match?