Ayodhya case: know what the arguments of Nirmohi Akhara were in the Supreme Court on the first day: Today is the second day of hearing in the Supreme Court of Ayodhya case. On Tuesday, the constitution bench of five judges of the Supreme Court began the final hearing on the Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi. A long series of arguments and evidence began in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. The first civil suit number three and five are being heard in the court. Three number civil suits are of Nirmohi Akhara and five number suits of Ramlala. After the number three-five case, the Sunni Waqf Board and the rest of the cases and claims will come.

The bench of five judges of the Supreme Court is hearing this matter. This bench is headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi himself. Apart from this, the bench Bench consists of Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazir.

Neither Ramlala, nor Waqf Board, all our land – Nirmohi Arena

Starting the debate on Tuesday, in the Allahabad High Court’s decision, the owner of one third land, Nirmohi Akhara, claimed that the disputed 2.77 acres of land is neither of Ramlala nor of the Sunni Waqf Board. All that land belongs to the arena only.

Sushil Jain, advocate of Nirmohi Akhara, did a long cross-examination before the court. Sushil Jain said that since 1934 the entry of Muslims at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site is closed. Nirmohi Akhara argued that this land was owned by him for hundreds of years. Advocating the Nirmohi Akhara, Sushil Jain said, “We are a registered institution, our demand is to own, manage and occupy the premises. We had possession of the inner complex and Ramjanmasthana for hundreds of years. ‘Sita Rasoi’, ‘Chabutra’ and ‘Bhandar Griha’ were also in our possession, there was no dispute about it. ” The Nirmohi Akhara said before a constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that it had claimed the disputed land since 1934, when the Sunni Waqf Board had claimed the disputed land in 1961.

During the debate in the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that we should clear the condition of our structure there. The Chief Justice asked from where does the entry take place? From Sita Kitchen or from Hanuman Gate? Apart from this, CJI asked how Nirmohi Arena is registered?

Namaz not read since 16 December 1949: Ayodhya case

Nirmohi Akhara claimed that the worship of Ramlala at the birthplace and the management of the temple has been doing this arena of Bairagi Sadhus. The Nirmohi Akhada claimed that Muslims had stopped offering five prayers in the mosque built on Ram Janmabhoomi in 1934. According to the Nirmohi Akhara, from Friday, December 16, 1949, Friday, the weekly Namaz of Jume was also stopped. Nirmohi Akhara claimed that on the night of 22-23 December 1949, the idol of Lord Shri Ram Lala was re-installed in the mosque.

No room for Vaju in the campus

Giving second evidence, Nirmohi Akhada said that according to Islam, the Vaju is done before offering Namaz, in which Namaji washes hands and feet and body parts before offering Namaz. The lawyer said that there is no place for Vaju at this place. Since 1885 no Namaz has been paid there. That is, the use of the structure as a mosque was stopped decades before the claim.

Three riots

Nirmohi Akhara also claimed in the court that Hindus tried to re-enact the right to worship in 1850. Worship continued in the inner yard. But this system could not be formalized due to the British occupation and the policy of dividing Hindus and Muslims. The worshipers filed a court suit in 1989 to formalize the right to worship. During the debate, it was said that there were riots first in 1853 then in 1885 and later in 1934 to capture the temple / mosque building and its property at the disputed site.

Nirmohi Akhada said that we were worshiping there for centuries, only our priests were handling the management, on December 6 in 1992, mischievous elements demolished the disputed structure built on Ramjanmabhoomi.

Live streaming demand rejected

During the hearing of this case on Tuesday, the Supreme Court rejected the petition of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ideologue KN Govindacharya seeking live streaming of the Ayodhya dispute case. On behalf of Govindacharya, Manyata Gupta had demanded that if there is no live stream, then the court should appoint two officers and record the written details of the processing, every evening it should be compiled. But the court rejected his demand.

Sunni Waqf Board lawyer rebuked

During the hearing in the court, there was a fierce debate between Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Rajiv Dhawan and the judges of the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court was commenting on the arguments of the counsel of Nirmohi Akhara, Rajiv Dhawan intervened. To this, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, “Mr. Dhawan please maintain the dignity of the court”. The court said that you are the officer of the court and take care of this. Now the hearing of this case will start again from Wednesday.

Also Read this: Ayodhya case: Supreme Court asked- Was Jesus born in Bethlehem?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here