As per the latest development in the top court hearing, the Nirmohi Akhara laid full claim to the core disputed 2.77 acre Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid land saying it had been under its possession and the Akhara was also in full control of its management. Sushil Jain, counsel appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, said the practice of worshipping Ram Lalla has been continuing at the site for hundreds of years. The counsel referred to the period as 'immemorial'.
The counsel also read out the written submission filed by those who opposed the Akhara's claims of mandatory injunctions. The Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had sought to know what were the grounds on which the Akhara's claims had been opposed. At the start of the argument on the first day of hearing, the Akhara underlined its historical significance.
Its counsel informed the Supreme Court that "Jhansi ki Rani" was protected by Nirmohis, members of the Math, during the battle of Jhansi. "We have been fighting for this for so long because it is an issue of emotions for us," the counsel submitted before the Constitution Bench.
The top court had on July 18, asked the mediation panel to inform the court about the outcome of their proceedings as on July 31. The mediation panel, also comprising spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, had said in its report submitted on Thursday that the Hindu and the Muslim parties have not been able to find a solution to the vexatious dispute.
The apex court, which on March 8 referred the matter for mediation, had asked for in-camera proceedings to be completed within eight weeks, but later granted time till August 15 after the panel's earlier report said that the mediators were "optimistic" about an amicable solution.
After the bench on August 2 passed the order, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party had raised several technical issues and said he will need 20 days to argue the various issues arising in the matter in detail and there should not be any curtailment on the hearing. While he was raising different aspects of the matter and how the appeals have to be heard, the bench had told him "don't remind us what we have to do."
"We know there are many aspects and we will deal with all these aspects. Let the hearing start," it had said. Dhavan also raised the issue of pending writ petition filed by senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and the application filed by a Muslim body. The court which had perused a report about the progress of mediation process till July 18, had said that its contents will remain confidential as per its earlier order.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished. The central government on January 29 this year moved the apex court seeking its nod to return the 67-acre undisputed acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.
The 0.313 acre plot, on which the disputed structure stood before it was demolished by 'kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992, was within the 2.77-acre disputed premises., the plea said. The government had then acquired 67.703 acres, including the 2.77-acre plot, through a legislation in 1993. The Ram Janambhoomi Nyas (RJN) is the owner of as much as 42 acres of the acquired non-disputed land.
The Centre's plea said that the RJN (a trust to promote construction of Ram Temple) had also sought return of excess land acquired to original owners. The Centre claimed that only 0.313 acre of land was disputed on which the structure stood before it was demolished by 'kar sevaks' on December 6, 1992. A week later, another petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of 1993 Central law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed site, contending that Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the state.
Seven individuals, including two Lucknow-based lawyers claiming to be devotees of Ram Lalla, said state legislature has exclusive power to make provisions on management of religious affairs inside its territory.
The plea said the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993 Act infringes right to religion of Hindus guaranteed and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
(With inputs from agencies)