[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 35] : Hindu Parties Submit Reply Arguments On Juristic Personality And ASI Report

Senior Advocate K Parasaran continued arguing his rejoinder on day 35 of the Ayodhya land dispute hearing by citing some shlokas from the Bhagvad Gita and reiterated that the birthplace place must be considered a juridical person. "If the people believe a place to have supernatural powers, it can be considered to a be a juristic person irrespective of the kind of manifestation of the divine." He submitted that all elements- air, water, earth, fire and space are worshipped. All directions are worshipped and it ends with worshipping the Earth. Giving the example of Chidambaram temple, where there is no linga but just a curtain, he stated that "it's about Natraj". "When people visit, the curtain is lifted." As he continued to cite examples of other temples which don't have an idol, Rajeev Dhavan representating the Muslim side interjected to state that in each example cited, there was a temple. "It has manifested in the form of a temple." Parasaran responded by saying that a place of worship attended by the public with belief can be called a temple. A Temple, it was submitted, is a generic term used for place of worship. Justice Ashok Bhushan then enquired whether there would be two juridical persons in this case, the Bhoomi as well as Lord Ram. "There can be more than two", replied Parasaran. Justice Bobde then pointed out that "usually there is something called predominant deity, though there would be others". "Though there is a predominant deity, we have the manifestation of that deity in many forms. We call court as temple of justice. We have many judges but we call the whole as one institution - court", came the veteran lawyer's response. J Chandrachud clarified J Bobde's point and asserted that though there may be multiple deities, the juristic personality is attributed to the predominant deity of the temple. Rajeev Dhavan intervened to make his objections known. "This is an entirely new argument", he said and added that the matter is not about the nomenclature of the temple. He asserted that this would require him to give a note on these new aspects as there had to be arguments on proof backing their belief and worship. "Every argument is a new one. I can't understand their objection", retorted K Parasaran and made it clear that the court could have objections and question his submissions, but not Dhavan. Parasaran went on to cite case law and submitted that in cases of charitable endowments, the court has granted the status of a juristic entity to land on previous occasions. J Bobde then asked whether that would be applicable to every temple in India. "We could go on a case by case basis", said Parasaran. The Constitution has the right to call a place a temple or mosque. During the time of Babur, sovereign was above everything. But its not the case now. You can decide whether the place is a temple or not, he added. J Bobde advised caution regarding this argument and said, "consider the ramifications of considering this argument. You say ascribe divine character to land as there's a belief that an avatar was born there." Moving forward, J Bobde asked about the existence of any astrological or astronomical text supporting the birth of Lord Ram. After a few anecdotes by Dhavan in response, Parasaran replied by saying "his birthday is not celebrated, we go to the temple on Ram Navami." Referring to case laws, K Parasaran then continued to urge that two juristic entities could coexist within the same area in different forms- the idol and the Janmabhoomi. A deity could be believed to manifest itself in either a physical or perceived form, it is not required that it must be a consecrated idol, he added. As Rajeev Dhavan made his objections known again, Senior Advocate CS Vaidyanathan took exception with him interfering and cutting into their time. As Parasaran went on to counter the arguments regarding Res Judicata in the matter, Justice Chandrachud sought to clarify whether the argument was that the suit of 1885 would be covered by the 1882 CPC and not the 1908 CPC, even for those suits filed after 1908. "Yes", agreed Parasaran. Dhavan objected to argue that even if the 1882 CPC were to apply, Res Judicata would still be attracted. However, if that were the line taken, "a lot more would have to be argued", added Dhavan. Parasaran and Vaidyanathan again told court that the repeated interferences by Dhavan were unfair as the entire argument was not being allowed by those interruptions. "I was interrupted at every stage, and I answered every question", came Dhavan's reply. "That's not true...it's unfortunate that you say that", said Vaidyanathan. Before Parasaran concluded his arguments, J Bobde asked him whether there was a difference between a janmabhoomi and janmasthan. Janmasthan is specific, while Janmabhoomi could be much larger. The entire country could be Janmabhoomi, he added. CS Vaidyanathan then took over, submitted a note and rebutted the arguments made by the Muslim side. ...

[Ayodhya Hearing] [Day 35] : Hindu Parties Submit Reply Arguments On Juristic Personality And ASI Report

Nilashish Chaudhary

Tags