Lord Ram has to be respected, said senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Muslim parties. (Image Credit: PTI)
On the 29th day of hearing in Ram Janmabhumi-Babri Masjid title dispute case in the Supreme Court, the Muslim parties accepted that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya. However, they insisted that no one knows the exact birthplace. "I am giving in to the argument that Ram was born there, but does it make the place a juristic personality? Nobody till 1989 claimed the place as juristic personality," senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Muslim parties, said.
"They just say Ram was born here. None of the contours of the area are mentioned anywhere in the plaint...Hindu parties have argued that all existing structures be demolished at Ram Janmabhoomi and a new Temple be constructed there," Dhavan told the Supreme Court bench comprising of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer.
Dhavan also told the top court that Lord Ram and Allah both have to be respected in India which has diversity like no other nation.
"Lord Ram has to be respected, no doubt about it. If Lord Ram and Allah are not respected, this great nation which has diversity like no other nation will fall apart," Dhavan said.
The day-to-day hearings in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case began in the Supreme Court on August 7 with the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination, claiming Muslims had not prayed at the disputed site in Ayodhya since 1934. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, and comprising justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, started hearing the matter. The Allahabad High Court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land equally among Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Fourteen appeals have been filed in the Supreme Court against the verdict.
The top court has set October 18 as deadline for completion of all arguments in the protracted land title dispute, a move that has raised the possibility of a verdict in the politically sensitive case in the middle of November.