A suit shall be instituted in the deity’s name only after seeking the permission of the Court.
Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow
Ayodhya Case: Hearing to continue tomorrow
SC commences hearing for 17th day
16:42 September 02
Hearing to continue tomorrow
16:41 September 02
An idol is a juristic person- Dhawan
Dr. Dhavan reads out judgements where it has been observed that A shebait claiming his rights need not make the deity party to the suit.
An idol is a juristic person, however the proceedings on behalf of the idol is to be carried out by the Shebait and where the Shebait is not willing to take up the suit in its name then the suit shall be carried out by a person whom the law finds appropriate.
16:12 September 02
Places of Worship Act, 1991 will be attacked if Swayambhu arguments continue - Dhavan
Dhavan submits if the Swayambhu arguments continue then the Places of Worship Act, 1991 will be attacked.
"A temple is not a juristic person, however, an idol is a juristic person." he added.
15:17 September 02
Bench assembles post-lunch
Senior lawyer and convenor of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee Zafaryab Jilani
Dhavan explains the concept of ‘res nullius’ to prove whether the land is res nullius or not.
Senior lawyer and convenor of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee Zafaryab Jilani gives insights about what Muslim party is replying to the arguments given by the Hindu party.
13:04 September 02
We cannot rely on documents of Swayambhu and Parikrama submits Dhavan
Dhavan: The inferences drawn from the travelogues that they did not notice a Mosque does not mean that there did not exist any Mosque. Who were these people and how do they establish a historical fact?
History cannot be read without Historiography. We have placed evidence as to how to read history.
Dhavan explains the meaning of ‘Swayambhu’ which means the manifestation of God and it cannot be linked to a specific area.
He further said that we cannot rely on documents of Swayambhu and Parikrama.
12:24 September 02
Just because there is a peacock or a lotus that does not mean it was not a mosque: Dhavan
Dhavan submits that the preponderance of probability shows that the building in dispute was constructed during Aurangzeb’s tenure because it could not have been contructed during the reign of Akbar, Shahjahan or Humayun.
Just because there is a peacock or a lotus that does not mean that it was not a mosque and the Roman culture recognised these images, submits Dhavan
Dhavan reads the observations of the Judges of the High Court with respect to incriptions and the methodology adopted to reach such conclusion.
11:56 September 02
Hindu law is not the law of India and pandits were often bribed submits Dhavan
Dhavan submits that when 3 witnesses were asked what did they read at the site? They said “Allah”
He further added that in the Shaheedganj case it was observed that ‘It is for the plaintiff to prove who is in possession’.
In Humkumchand's case the Jain community differed with respect to the sacred hill. They said that ‘You have put parts of body there and we do not worship a body.’
There were also differences between the Shwetambers and Digamabars with respect to placing of idols, submits Dhawan.
10:58 September 02
Bench commences hearing the submissions on behalf of the Muslim Party
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday commenced hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 17th day with the bench starts hearing the submissions on behalf of the Muslim Party
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing for the Muslim party said that before he begins he would like to apologise but he had no intention to malign the integrity of the court but perhaps it is well known that he gets irritated.
Dhavan further said that the law which we follow has been inherited from the Law of Justice, Equity and good conscience. The law which we follow is not vedic law.
What law do you follow is my first question? Should we apply the Vedas and the Skanda Purana, submits Dhawan
Dhawan hands over to the bench a short compilation of the law of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
Contempt Petition of Rajeev Dhavan against a threat given to him by a professor for representing Muslims to be heard tomorrow
"He also seeks permission for a midweek break on Wednesday. CJI says that he can take a break on Friday as it would be inconvenient for the bench."
Also Read: Muslims accepted that Hindus prayed at Ram's birthplace: Hindu counsel to SC
16:42 September 02
Hearing to continue tomorrow
A suit shall be instituted in the deity’s name only after seeking the permission of the Court.
Bench rises for the day. Hearing to continue tomorrow
16:41 September 02
An idol is a juristic person- Dhawan
Dr. Dhavan reads out judgements where it has been observed that A shebait claiming his rights need not make the deity party to the suit.
An idol is a juristic person, however the proceedings on behalf of the idol is to be carried out by the Shebait and where the Shebait is not willing to take up the suit in its name then the suit shall be carried out by a person whom the law finds appropriate.
16:12 September 02
Places of Worship Act, 1991 will be attacked if Swayambhu arguments continue - Dhavan
Dhavan submits if the Swayambhu arguments continue then the Places of Worship Act, 1991 will be attacked.
"A temple is not a juristic person, however, an idol is a juristic person." he added.
15:17 September 02
Bench assembles post-lunch
Senior lawyer and convenor of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee Zafaryab Jilani
Dhavan explains the concept of ‘res nullius’ to prove whether the land is res nullius or not.
Senior lawyer and convenor of All India Babri Masjid Action Committee Zafaryab Jilani gives insights about what Muslim party is replying to the arguments given by the Hindu party.
13:04 September 02
We cannot rely on documents of Swayambhu and Parikrama submits Dhavan
Dhavan: The inferences drawn from the travelogues that they did not notice a Mosque does not mean that there did not exist any Mosque. Who were these people and how do they establish a historical fact?
History cannot be read without Historiography. We have placed evidence as to how to read history.
Dhavan explains the meaning of ‘Swayambhu’ which means the manifestation of God and it cannot be linked to a specific area.
He further said that we cannot rely on documents of Swayambhu and Parikrama.
12:24 September 02
Just because there is a peacock or a lotus that does not mean it was not a mosque: Dhavan
Dhavan submits that the preponderance of probability shows that the building in dispute was constructed during Aurangzeb’s tenure because it could not have been contructed during the reign of Akbar, Shahjahan or Humayun.
Just because there is a peacock or a lotus that does not mean that it was not a mosque and the Roman culture recognised these images, submits Dhavan
Dhavan reads the observations of the Judges of the High Court with respect to incriptions and the methodology adopted to reach such conclusion.
11:56 September 02
Hindu law is not the law of India and pandits were often bribed submits Dhavan
Dhavan submits that when 3 witnesses were asked what did they read at the site? They said “Allah”
He further added that in the Shaheedganj case it was observed that ‘It is for the plaintiff to prove who is in possession’.
In Humkumchand's case the Jain community differed with respect to the sacred hill. They said that ‘You have put parts of body there and we do not worship a body.’
There were also differences between the Shwetambers and Digamabars with respect to placing of idols, submits Dhawan.
10:58 September 02
Bench commences hearing the submissions on behalf of the Muslim Party
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday commenced hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the 17th day with the bench starts hearing the submissions on behalf of the Muslim Party
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing for the Muslim party said that before he begins he would like to apologise but he had no intention to malign the integrity of the court but perhaps it is well known that he gets irritated.
Dhavan further said that the law which we follow has been inherited from the Law of Justice, Equity and good conscience. The law which we follow is not vedic law.
What law do you follow is my first question? Should we apply the Vedas and the Skanda Purana, submits Dhawan
Dhawan hands over to the bench a short compilation of the law of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience.
Contempt Petition of Rajeev Dhavan against a threat given to him by a professor for representing Muslims to be heard tomorrow
"He also seeks permission for a midweek break on Wednesday. CJI says that he can take a break on Friday as it would be inconvenient for the bench."
Also Read: Muslims accepted that Hindus prayed at Ram's birthplace: Hindu counsel to SC
Intro:Body:
Conclusion:
Ayodhya hearing day 17 LIVE
Conclusion:
Last Updated : Sep 2, 2019, 6:06 PM IST
