, 73 tweets, 17 min read

A five-judge bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has assembled.

As directed by CJI, the lawyers in all applications and petitions are handing over written submissions.

A lawyer asks for some time to argue.

CJI: we have told you that at 5 PM today this case ends. Enough is enough.
Sr. Adv CS Vaidyanathan for Ram Lalla continues his submission on ouster and possession, "they have not been able to prove complete ouster or exclusive possession".
CSV: In 1855 they didn't have exclusive possession, they didn't have exclusive use. Both Hindus and Muslims were in use.

CSV: They say birthplace of Lord Ram is Ram Chabutra in outer courtyard, we have shown that devotees were worshipping on the platform from the railing to the dome.

J. DYC: what is your case regarding possession post 1855 in the inner courtyard.

CSV: In 1855 there was a railing put up for sake of law and order. When the devotees could not go in, platform was set up and devotees were worshipping...
CSV: ...It can't be that it is a 10 by 10 room my lords. It is Janmabhumi.

CSV: it's darshan my lords, for that you don't even have to go inside. It's darshan.

Bhushan J.: post 1855 was there any idol there (inside dome)?

CSV: No my lords, but devotees had darshan.

Referring to WS of Sunni Waqf Board in Suit 5 points out that waqf board had taken the stand that the land belonged to the State undoubtedly.

J. Bobde: State means the emperor?
CSV: yes, this is their case that emperor Babar himself gave approval for construction of mosque and it was built on vacant land.

CSV further points out that their express case is that there was title but that rights ceased to exist and the title extinguished.
Nazeer J.: That is why they have argued on waqf by long use.

CSV: waqf by long use is different from adverse possession.

CSV: According to us we continued to offer prayers.

CSV is referring to pleadings in suit 4 that stage that from 1528 to 1855 there was no whisper of the place of birth of Ram being in the precincts of mosque.
CSV: This is contrary to my learned friend's own understanding, he says that before 1855 both used to worship.
CSV: there is no record anywhere, no judgment that says that muslims are the owners. There is no proprietary interest.
J. DYC: Mr. Vaidyanathan, you should refer yourself to two submissions, what is your reply to title claimed in suit 4 and what is your perspective. So it'll be a wrap up.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan: Are my lordships strictly adhering to the schedule.

CJI nods in affirmative.

CSV: i am adhering to my schedule.

CJI: we sat 10 minutes late, don't worry, we will ring a bell.
J. DYC: you should sum up Mr. Vaidyanathan, if you give an overview.

CSV starts submissions

CJI: Mr. Vaidyanathan, you should do what my brother told because your time is up.

CSV: there can't be dedication by Muslims when the place was in use by others.

Bobde J. : This is regarding waqf by user?

CSV: yes, for waqf by user there has to be exclusive user.

CSV: on adverse possession, there has to be ouster of prior owner, possession has to be held adverse to the prior owner and has to be long, continuous and exclusive. On the other hand their case is that we had been praying and were continuously trying to dislodge them (hindus)
CSV: They may have other places of worship...

CJI: Next, Mr. Ranjit Kumar yesterday you said you'll take 2 minutes?

Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv: i said two minutes for yesterday my lords.

CSV is referring to an incident where prophet Mohammed wanted to build a mosque on a vacant piece of land and enquired that it belonged to two orphans, and despite the land being offered, Prophet insisted on buying the land.
CJI: ok, next.

Dhavan: I must point out that this is a totally different argument. Not a reply.
Senior advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar, begins his reply on behalf of plaintiffs in Suit No. 1.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr Adv refers to Kailash Mansarovar where the entire mountain is held sacred as a deity.

Ranjit Kumar submits that whether the disputed structure was valid mosque or not will be decided as per the tenets of that religion.

RK submits that Plaintiffs in Suit 4 had failed to prove their case & character of building cannot be decided on the faith of Muslims. The question is also not about emperor Babar but that if plaintiffs in suit 4 can prove their case as against my pre existing right of worship.
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. for defendant no. 13 in suit 4, for Dharam Das, chela of Mahant Abhiram Das begins.

Sushil Jain, Sr. adv. objects.

CJI: there is no harm giving him 5 minutes, he has been waiting.

Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv starts on behalf of All India Hindu Mahasabha.
Vikas Singh submits a book titled "Ayodhya Revisited".

Dr. Dhavan seriously objects and says that this is a recent publication and cannot be given as evidence.
CJI: Mr. Singh, i am keeping this book, I'll start reading it and continue to read it after November, ok?
Dr. Dhavan continues to object to Vikas Singh referring to Hans Bakker's book.

CJI: Dr. Dhavan, you have already argued on this, do you recollect?

RD: I do but he doesn't.
CJI: how will he remember, he wasn't here. We remember that how can a thesis written by foreign authors on ayodhya can be entertained.

RD: Then my lords should tell him this

CJI: i guess he heard us.

RD: He didn't my lords. He didn't.
Vikas Singh asked by CJI to conclude, he persists that he has more to argue.

CJI: As far as we are concerned, arguments are over, if you don't stick to schedule we can just get up and go.

Mr. Singh is referring to Govt. of India Act, 1858 in submitting that while it is claimed that the Board of revenue had given a grant in 1860 to certain Muslims, the Board itself was abolished in 1858.
Mr. Vikas Singh refers to temple in Tirupati to indicate that hindus were going to the railing to pray to the inner sanctorum under the dome. He submits that in Tirupati and other temples one cannot enter the inner sanctorum. Yoj are returned 20 meters away.
Vikas Singh concludes and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain is asked tk begin
Sushil Jain is replying to documents relied upon by Muslim parties relating to repair of the mosque. He submits that documents relating to repair or of exemption from payment of revenue cannot be taken as evidence of possession.
Mr. Jain further submits that as far as the outer courtyard is concerned there is no dispute with regard to Nirmohi Akahara's possession.
Further submission by Mr. Jain is with regard to waqf by long use. He submits that neither there is any specific case in the pleadings with regard to waqf by long use nor is there any evidence of wawf by user.
'When the documents show that Hindus were using the place, then they cannot be in exclusive possession', submits Jain.
Jain submits that Art. 120, Limitation Act will be applicable for plaintiffs in Suit 4 but in Nirmohi's Suit, Art 120 will not be applicable.

Jain also is submitting that the idols that were placed on the platform could not have been shifted inside in full view of Muslims and Hindus alike.

Jain: There is no plaintiff of Suit No. 4 who can claim that he has been in possession of the disputed property which is claimed to the Mosque, there is no evidence showing possession.

J. DYC: your case is that there was no mutawalli?

Jain: yes. We are entitled to shebaiti rights, we are entitled to possession and noone can touch the deity except shebait.

Jain concludes, Adv. MC Dhingra for shia waqf board begins.

Ejaz Maqbool, AoR points out that Shia Waqf board is not a party in suit 4.

Bench rises for the lunch.


Post lunch session.

Bench assembled.

Lawyers asking time to be heard.

CJI: we will hear Mr. Mishra, if we have more time we will hear.

Another lawyer appears claiming he appears for buddhists and it is important. CJI informs him that his matter not on board
Senior advocate PN Mishra: in books on Mohammaden law written by Ameer Ali it is clearly mentioned that sources of Islamic Law are Quran, Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas. From Al Sharia i can read, the book is here. Holy Qur'an is the primary source.

PNM: they have already admitted that prior to 1886 they have no any evidence for possession or title.
Mishra is now referring to accounts of William Finch and Father Josef Tiefenthaler referred by him earlier during arguments. .
He refers to account of Tiefenthaler where he says that the mosque is claimed to be built by Aurangzeb as per some locals and by Babur as per others
J.DYC: Mr. Mishra instead of going in this issue (of islamic law) can you address us on limitation.

PNM: ok my lords limitation starts when their right is attacked and their right was attacked and it was in 1934 at first and then in 1949.

J. DYC: so according to you that after 16th (December 1949) they could not have performed namaz, anything else?

PNM : i have serious objection, my learned senior has raised question of competence, it should be struck from record.

DYC: that is settled.

CJI: Next.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan resumes submission.

RD: I will reply to all the arguments that have been made today in one line first.

RD: As far as Dharam Das is concerned he has not established that he was a shebait nor has he established that his guru was a shebait.
RD: As far as Mahasabhas are concerned, my lords have had 4 responses from Mahasabha, there was one defendant Mahasabha, from which two appeals were preferred and now there are 4 responses.
RD: I want to know which Mahasabha is being represented and are they honest enough to tell. There has to be a certain degree of candour, 4 submissions by Mahasabhas and contradictory.

RD: There is some controversy going on social media that i tore pages in court. My lords i had said i wanna throw it away and my lord chief justice said that i can tear it so it was with permission of court.

CJI: (smiling) Yes, Dr. Dhavan asked us and the I said that he may tear the pages only then he did.

RD: i am obliged.

Nazeer J. : But it has circulated now.

RD submits that UP Muslim Waqfs Act is the operative act and it stated that the board has the right to take steps to get back the waqf properties. Dr. Dhavan is making the submission in response to the claim that waqf board has no right since there was no Mutawalli.
Dhavan is now reading parts of a document relied upon in Suit 4 which has been objected to by CS Vaidyanathan claiming that there is contradiction in translation. Dr. Dhavan said that what Mr. Jilani had placed before HC was a transliteration from persian. Justice Agarwal.
The translation was introduced by justice Agarwal, says Dhavan
Dr. Dhavan referring to arguments by PN Mishra submits that his arguments are not based on knowledge of land revenue.

PN Mishra interjects: i have written books on land revenue and people have referred to it in PhDs.

Dhavan: they shouldn't have then.

J.DYC cautions Dr. Dhavan not to make it personal.

RD submits its not at all personal and only in regard to the argument.

RD: All the particular acts they are relying upon, including 1855, are illegal acts. How do you claim aid from an illegal act?

RD: first you had to show title, you didn't. You haven't even shown use, except for travellers. You rely upon statements made by people in year 2000. Even if we assume that you had title, what do we say? That then over time we have title by adverse possession.

RD: This is an alternative submissions with all caveats and cautions.

RD: They say Babur was an invader, he was a conquerer. I must remind that India was not one but several political entities.
RD: Sultanate was established in 1200s. Then they will say look at the conversions, my lords there is a fact that when Islam came to India it was a very attractive religion in terms of equality.

RD: What they want you to say is to go beyond constitution and say that there was one community that has been historically wronged. Who are they? Hindus. My lords the majority of administration under Mughals was Hindu. Who coerced who?

RD: my plea is not a plea of title alone. It is of waqf. My plea is not adverse possession, it is an alternative plea. My declaration in plea A is of public waqf.

Addressing the submission by Mr. Ranjit Kumar that Gopal Singh Visharad's legal heirs were not substituted in Suit 4, Dr. Dhavan submits that there was no such obligation. He submits that the son of a litigant, cannot claim to have succession in a suit filed for rights of worship
Mr. Ranjit Kumar stands up to interject, CJI requests him to remain seated.
"He was interruptinng when i was arguing, my lords" claims Mr. Ranjit Kumar

CJI: so you will too now? That is what you are saying? He did it so you'll do it? Please remain seated.

Referring to the 1992 demolition of the mosque Dr. Dhavan submits, "The building that was destroyed was of Muslims, the right of its reconstruction, its restoration can only be with the Muslims."

Saare Jahan se acha Hindostan Humara, Hum Bulbule hain iski, ye gulsitan humara, Hindi hain hum, watan hai, Hindostan humara -Dr. Dhavan quotes Sare Jahan se Acha Hindostan Hamara. "This is the spirit of our constitution, my lords"

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with The Leaflet

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!