ETV Bharat / bharat

Ayodhya case: Counsel for 'Ram Lalla' to submit oral evidence on Aug 19

Ayodhya case: Counsel for 'Ram Lalla' to submit oral evidence on Aug 19

Ayodhya dispute: SC hearing to enter 8th day on Friday

By

Published : Aug 16, 2019, 1:06 PM IST

|

Updated : Aug 17, 2019, 12:02 AM IST

23:59 August 16

On seventh day, Hindus cite archaeology

SC lawyer Vishnu Jain on the court proceedings

On the seventh day of the Ayodhya hearing, the Hindu parties cited evidence based on an archaeological report to state that there was a massive structure at the Babri Masjid site dating back to the 2nd century BC which was public in nature and that the structure would be a temple or 'mandap' with pillars.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, informed the court that the archaeological study was carried out at the disputed site where the Babri mosque was demolished by a mob in December 1992.

The archaeological report concluded that various structures were found in various layers during the excavation.

For example, a passage to drain excess water resulting from the 'abhishek' of the deity was found.

16:26 August 16

Vaidyanathan to next submit oral evidence on Monday

CJI: How do you connect pranala (discharge outlet) to the existence of the temple?

CS Vaidyanathan: Pranala was for the abhishekham water to be drained out. It is an interpretation by the archaeologists based on findings.

CJI: What next after archaeological evidence?

CS Vaidyanathan: Will submit oral evidence, will be able to complete submissions in 3-4 hours.

Bench then rises for the day, hearing to continue on Monday

14:46 August 16

Justice Chandrachud and Justice Bobde questions Vaidyanathan

Justice Chandrachud - We have seen for millions of year, the structures being built and rebuilt on the same land.

Vaidyanathan - Archeological evidence shows that there was a structure.

Justice Bobde - Mere presence of structure doesn't help us.

Vaidyanathan - It had a massive hall. No structures had such halls in those periods except the structures for public access or a religious structure.

Justice Chandrachud (on photographs submitted by Vaidyanathan) - You also have a grave in one layer and a shrine in another layer. How to interpret this?

Vaidyanathan - The deep excavations has not been done near the graves

14:33 August 16

Hearing resumes post-lunch, Vaidyanathan presents ASI report

Vaidyanathan resumes his submissions post-lunch.

On the basis of the ASI report, Vaidyanathan further said that the disputed place wasn't an agricultural land. There was a massive structure which was constructed during the 2nd century. It had a huge number of pillars. He also provided public access and other elements which were found along with excavation proving that there was a temple.

But the Muslim party opposed the facts presented by Vaidyanathan saying that the disputed land was a vacant piece when Babur constructed the mosque.

13:06 August 16

More evidences presented by Vaidyanathan

Advocate CS Vaidyanathan handed a map found in Ayodhya to the bench with a description of images carved on the pillars.

He further took the bench through the inspection report of the cite, dating back to 1950 saying that the report shows that the cite holds religious sanctity for Hindus.

Vaidyanathan also submitted an album containing photographs of deities inside the structure.

CJI responded to this evidence and said,

"All this is very fascinating but please point out the points from the report which is going to solve the problem which we are having."

12:01 August 16

Advocate CS Vaidyanathan submits evidence to establish if the mosque was valid according to Islamic laws

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, the counsel for deity 'Ram Lalla', submitted evidence to establish if the mosque was valid according to Islamic laws.

He said that just because prayers were offered there that doesn't mean that it was a mosque.

"Prayers can be offered on the streets but that doesn't mean that it will have ownership. It might have been used as a mosque but it wasn't a mosque in accordance with the Sharia law."

11:55 August 16

Day-to-day hearing resumes for the 7th day

New Delhi: The crucial day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in the Supreme Court entered the 7th day on Friday with the counsel for the deity, ''Ram Lalla Virajman'', re-commencing arguments for claim over the entire 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya.

Also read: Live: SC beings hearing on pleas against Article 370

23:59 August 16

On seventh day, Hindus cite archaeology

SC lawyer Vishnu Jain on the court proceedings

On the seventh day of the Ayodhya hearing, the Hindu parties cited evidence based on an archaeological report to state that there was a massive structure at the Babri Masjid site dating back to the 2nd century BC which was public in nature and that the structure would be a temple or 'mandap' with pillars.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, informed the court that the archaeological study was carried out at the disputed site where the Babri mosque was demolished by a mob in December 1992.

The archaeological report concluded that various structures were found in various layers during the excavation.

For example, a passage to drain excess water resulting from the 'abhishek' of the deity was found.

16:26 August 16

Vaidyanathan to next submit oral evidence on Monday

CJI: How do you connect pranala (discharge outlet) to the existence of the temple?

CS Vaidyanathan: Pranala was for the abhishekham water to be drained out. It is an interpretation by the archaeologists based on findings.

CJI: What next after archaeological evidence?

CS Vaidyanathan: Will submit oral evidence, will be able to complete submissions in 3-4 hours.

Bench then rises for the day, hearing to continue on Monday

14:46 August 16

Justice Chandrachud and Justice Bobde questions Vaidyanathan

Justice Chandrachud - We have seen for millions of year, the structures being built and rebuilt on the same land.

Vaidyanathan - Archeological evidence shows that there was a structure.

Justice Bobde - Mere presence of structure doesn't help us.

Vaidyanathan - It had a massive hall. No structures had such halls in those periods except the structures for public access or a religious structure.

Justice Chandrachud (on photographs submitted by Vaidyanathan) - You also have a grave in one layer and a shrine in another layer. How to interpret this?

Vaidyanathan - The deep excavations has not been done near the graves

14:33 August 16

Hearing resumes post-lunch, Vaidyanathan presents ASI report

Vaidyanathan resumes his submissions post-lunch.

On the basis of the ASI report, Vaidyanathan further said that the disputed place wasn't an agricultural land. There was a massive structure which was constructed during the 2nd century. It had a huge number of pillars. He also provided public access and other elements which were found along with excavation proving that there was a temple.

But the Muslim party opposed the facts presented by Vaidyanathan saying that the disputed land was a vacant piece when Babur constructed the mosque.

13:06 August 16

More evidences presented by Vaidyanathan

Advocate CS Vaidyanathan handed a map found in Ayodhya to the bench with a description of images carved on the pillars.

He further took the bench through the inspection report of the cite, dating back to 1950 saying that the report shows that the cite holds religious sanctity for Hindus.

Vaidyanathan also submitted an album containing photographs of deities inside the structure.

CJI responded to this evidence and said,

"All this is very fascinating but please point out the points from the report which is going to solve the problem which we are having."

12:01 August 16

Advocate CS Vaidyanathan submits evidence to establish if the mosque was valid according to Islamic laws

Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, the counsel for deity 'Ram Lalla', submitted evidence to establish if the mosque was valid according to Islamic laws.

He said that just because prayers were offered there that doesn't mean that it was a mosque.

"Prayers can be offered on the streets but that doesn't mean that it will have ownership. It might have been used as a mosque but it wasn't a mosque in accordance with the Sharia law."

11:55 August 16

Day-to-day hearing resumes for the 7th day

New Delhi: The crucial day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in the Supreme Court entered the 7th day on Friday with the counsel for the deity, ''Ram Lalla Virajman'', re-commencing arguments for claim over the entire 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya.

Also read: Live: SC beings hearing on pleas against Article 370

Intro:Body:Conclusion:

Last Updated : Aug 17, 2019, 12:02 AM IST

For All Latest Updates

TAGGED:

CS Vaidyanathan

'Ayodhya dispute

Copyright © 2025 Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., All Rights Reserved.