, 45 tweets, 14 min read
#Ayodhya Ram Temple-Babri Masjid land case in Supreme Court: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi has refused to take any intervention application in the case. [ANI]
[#AyodhyaHearing - Final Day]

Sr Adv Ranjit Kumar makes his submissions for Gopal Singh Visharad.
It was said several times that I was a practising muslim. I am also a practicing Hindu. I am aware of scriptures. I visited many temples with Paradaran and also Kailash Mansarovar. It's the mountain thats worshiped as abode of Shiva and not a deity alone.
Tenets of Islam will decide whether the disputed structure was a mosque or not.

Its outside the purview of judiciary to examine the authenticity of the structure.
A decision on the nature of the building cannot be based on the faith of Muslims.
Plaintiffs in suit 4 couldn't prove their case against my pre existing right to worship: Ranjith Kumar
Advocate for Mahant Dharam Das, Sr Ad. Jaydeep Gupta argues.

Sushil Jain, nirmohi Akhara's lawyer objects. CJI allows him to argue. "He's been waiting..he can have 5 mins", CJI
Arguing on shebait rights.

Baba Abhiram is the Pujari and is the Shebait. It is admitted position that idols were placed by Baba Abhiram Das. He is the only person who has direct evidence of shebsitship.
He was also the priest of the disputed structure and was later disowned by Nirmohi Akhara.
(Dharam Das is Abhiram Das's disciple)
Now sr Adv Vikas Singh for All India Hindu Mahasabha.

Looking to submit a book called Ayodhya Revisited by Kunal Kishore.
Dhavan objects and urges bench not to take it on record. Says it has been recently written and cannot be treated as evidence
#AyodhyaHearing- Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan TEARS documents and maps submitted by the All India Hindu Mahasabha as he vehemently objects to their submissions. CJI asks him to shred it further. Dhavan tears more paper.

"We could just get up & walk out", exclaims CJI
Book by Kishore Kunal
CJI loud objections are not in line with decorum of the court. Says lawyers are wasting time as judges could just read the submissions instead of hearing arguments

Vikas Singh referring to GoI Act 1858. It was claimed that revenue board gave Muslims certain grant in 1860. But the board was disolved in 1858
A place can be sacred even if the deity gets removed for Hindus.
The original place is the Janmasthan. Inspite of conversion to a mosque, Hindus continued to worship uninterruptedly. There are specific marks where people worship. We do puja to a deity 15 to 20 m away.
I go to Tirupati every year, we are not allowed to touch the deity. Only pujaris can touch it. It was also happening at janmasthan. Fence was only to limit the extent of how close we can get: Vikas Singh

Vikas Singh Concludes saying he adopts arguments made by CSV and Parasaran
CJI asks SK Jain, for Nirmohi, to conclude by lunch

Jain- no evidence of Babur coming to Ayodhya
Muslim parties have failed to prove that mosque was constructed by Babur : Jain

The building was always a temple. Irrespective of what Babur did. Babur did not demolish temple. It has been unnecessarily said that the temple was demolished and a mosque was built



We have shebaiti rights and entitled to title. No one but Shebait can touch deity
CJI does not allow Subramanian Swamy @Swamy39 y to argue his writ petition. Says it was untagged and they are only hearing appeals
#AyodhyaHearing [Final Day]
CJI allows PN Mishra to argue
Mishra- books on Mohammedan law clearly state that Quran is the primary source of Islamic law
Muslims have no evidence of use of land before 1856, says. Mishra narrating chronology of events.
J DYC asks him to argue specifically on limitation
Rajeev Dhavan commences his final arguments.
J Nazeer asks whether Sunni waqf board is competent to maintain suit
There was one respondent from Hindu mahasabha from which 2 appeals were preferred. Now there are 4 replies by them. Which mahasabha is being represented? The 4 submissions are contradictory: Dhavan

Dharam Das' plea on behalf of Nirvani Akhara never proved they were shebaits, only that they were pujaris

The incident of tearing pages is going viral, I want to clarify that i was going to throw them but CJI said tear them. So I would like to state that I tore pages with permission of the court. CJI agrees: Rajeev Dhavan

What was destroyed belonged to us, we sought restitution: Dhavan

Dhavan arguing on authenticity of certain translations. Says one of them was not a legitimate translation but a version by Faizabad court judge
#AyodhyaHearing #Ayodhya
Dhavan : The mosque and waqf was recognized by the govt. Unless they show a contrary use of site. PN Mishra does not know about land grant and his argument is foolish.
RD- you did not show title. Have not even shown use except through ancient travellers. Even if we were to assume you had title, do we say over time we have it through adverse possession?
Mr Parasaran's argument is wrong as an act of God can't be attributed to Babur. He was not bound by any law: rajeev Dhavan


Dhavan : Hindus had no title but only had prescriptive right to pray. Commissioner's decision is binding and contradictory to district judge.
#AyodhyaHearing #RamMandir #BabriMasjid
With regard to conquests, Dhavan argues that even Hindus were conquerors. There were thousands of conquests in History. How are they any different from Muslim conquests? Can't differentiate conquests based on Hindu, Muslim.
Dhavan : Sultanate began in 1206. Muslims were present since then. Islam was an attractive faith for those who were cornered through untouchability. India was a mix of many.
#AyodhyaHearing #RamMandir #BabriMasjid
Dhavan : My plea is not only for title. There are other aspects. The declaration is for a public Waqf. It was a public mosque. It includes mosque, land and many things. If Hindus are able to prove title before 1855, I adversely own the place for more than 2 centuries.
My plea is not only for title. There are other aspects.

The declaration is for a public Waqf. It was a public mosque. It includes mosque, land and many things.

If Hindus are able to prove title before 1855, i adversely own the place for more than 2 centuries: Dhavan #Ayodhya
The onus of proof lies on Hindus.

Mosque was dedicated to almighty and grave yard was also used.

Muslims were peacefully praying when mischievous crowd desecrated the mosque.
The building was ours, The plea of restoration definitely belongs to us: Dhavan

RD-We claim the entire area is part of the masjid. The Chabutra (outer courtyard) is part of the masjid

This is in response to Justice DY Chandrachud referring to the map and saying masjid and Chabutra were both part of inner courtyard
Masjid starts on the right side of the wall at the graveyard. It is not just the domes.

Lordships are reading the map incorrectly : Dhavan

Dhavan explains map. Tries to clarify that the dome area is in the west, railing in the east. Chabutra is outside the railing in the outer courtyard

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

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Live Law

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!