Hindu side’s argument – Ramlala’s right over the entire land, Why Muslim side’s claim – the land belongs to the Masjid: In the 40-day long hearing to prove ownership over the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi, the Hindu and Muslim parties made their long arguments. The debate ranged from the definition of deity to the claims of ownership rights when the disputed property was destroyed.
Hindu arguments in Ayodhya Case
Taking a look at the hearing that lasted for 40 consecutive days, Lord Shri Ram Virajman on behalf of the Hindu side has demanded that the entire land be declared a birthplace and given ownership. On his behalf, the birthplace has also been made a separate party and the lawsuit claims that the birthplace itself is a deity and would be considered a judicial person. However, in law, the Hindu deity (idol) is considered a judicial person and gets all the same rights as a living person.
The main debate was on the issue of considering birthplace as a judicial person.
The main debate in this lawsuit was on the issue of considering the birthplace as a judicial person. The Hindu side also referred to Pushkar, Kailash and Sangam etc. as regards the birthplace as a judicial person. He said that the rule of adverse possession and time limit for filing the suit does not apply to the deity nor can there be division of the deity. In such a situation, the High Court’s order to divide the birth land into three parts is not correct.
Lord Rama was born in the central dome
The Hindu side also tried to prove in its arguments that Lord Rama was born at the exact location of the central dome in the dissected structure and where Lord Ram Lalla currently sits. In this connection, the Skanda Purana, Valmiki Ramayana and the accounts of foreign travelers were cited by the Hindu side.
Muslims can perform namaz anywhere, birthplace cannot be changed
From the Hindu side it was also argued that there are many Masjids in Ayodhya, Muslims can offer Namaz anywhere, but the place of birth cannot be changed, Hindus have faith there.
Hindu side strongly emphasized on ASI report
The Hindu side strongly emphasized the ASI report that there is a huge structure like the north carpet temple under the disputed structure. It also said that the disputed structure had statues of kalash, lotus and goddesses, which proves that there was a first temple which was broken into a Masjid and temple material was used to build a Masjid. It also said that all these things do not happen in the Masjid.
Nirmohi Akhada seeks possession of entire land
On behalf of the successor of Gopal Singh Visharad, who is seeking the right of worship, it was said that when the High Court has accepted that the place is Ram Janmabhoomi and Hindus have faith there, then how can they be prevented from worshiping there. Visharad’s case was dismissed by the High Court. Nirmohi Akhada, calling himself a serviceman of Ramlala, demanded the right to occupy and manage the entire land. The akhara says that he has been worshiping Lord Ram Lalla there since ancient times and since 1885, Sunni Waqf Board has also agreed to be there and worship on Ram platform.
Arguments of muslim side in Ayodhya Case
On the other hand, the Sunni Waqf Board and seven other parties from the Muslim side strongly opposed the arguments of the Hindu side. The Muslim side says that the place cannot be considered a deity nor can it be given the status of a judicial person. It was alleged on their part that the Hindu side has done this intentionally to end the rights of the other parties in the eyes of law.
The Hindu side failed to prove the exact location of Rama’s birth
The Muslim side also said that the Hindu side has failed to prove the exact location of Lord Rama’s birth. There is no evidence to prove that Lord Rama was born under the central dome.
Muslims continued to offer Namaz ever since Babur built the Masjid in 1528.
The Muslim side said that Babur built the Masjid in 1528 and Muslims have been continuously offering namaz there since then so they own the land. Babar was the ruler and was the owner of the land due to being the ruler, so after five hundred years, the court cannot check the work of Babur.
The Masjid was Waqf property
The Muslim side says that the Masjid was Waqf property which Muslims have been using for a long time. The Muslim side, citing various gadgets and orders etc., said that the then British government also considered it a Masjid.
It was wrong to demolish the structure on 6 December 1992
The Muslim side said that the demolition on 6 December 1992 was wrong and they demanded that the situation on 5 December 1992 be restored and the building be rebuilt.
Supreme Court Questions
- What is God?
- What place can be a judicial person?
- Can the Masjid contain flower leaves, animals and other idols.
- If the property which has been claimed is destroyed, then what will happen to the claim of ownership over it.