Deity Represents Lord Ram's Spirit Which The Janmabhoomi Manifests : Sr Adv Parasaran Tells SC

"The Bhagwat Gita says that worship of God can be in both the forms, unmanifested as well as manifested. But it is difficult to worship in the unmanifested form", began Senior Advocate K.Parasaran on the 35th day of the hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

He proceeded to cite the examples of the Chidambaram temple and another temple in Kerala where divinity is said to emanate from a pit in the ground as places of public worship where there is no idol or any picture of a deity but daily 'pooja' is performed by worshippers in large numbers.

At this point , Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhawan objected that in each of these instances, there is a manifestation in the form of a temple which is not the case in Ayodhya.

"A temple is a place of public worship where members of public offer prayers in pursuance of their faith and devotion and the belief that it would lead to their spiritual and beneficial advancements. According to Article 25, any Hindu institution, where worship of even formless God happens, may be a temple. Nomenclature does not matter. What is inbuilt in the word 'Temple' matters. No definition can override what the Constitution says. A word has to derive its meaning from the changing times. Worship and faith make any institution a temple", responded Mr. Parasaran.

" To constitute a temple it is enough if it is a place of public religious worship and if the people believe in its religious efficacy irrespective of the fact whether there is an idol or a structure or other paraphernalia. It is enough if the devotees or the pilgrims feel that there is some super human power which they should worship and invoke its blessings", he quoted from an earlier judgment of the apex court.

"Worship is offered to different manifestations of the supreme being, which may be a pond or even land. Do each of these places where worship is offered become juristic persons, or is there really only one juristic entity if people are praying to one supreme being in the unmanifested form", asked Justice D. Y. Chandrachud.

"Is the spirit of Lord Ram invoked in the janama bhoomi and in the idol both or is there only one juridical person" inquired Justice Ashok Bhushan.

"There may be any number of juridical persons in one institution itself", replied Mr. Parasaran.

"But there is always a predominant deity in the name of which a temple is known…?",ventured Justice S.A.Bobde.

"One deity can manifest itself in several forms in the same temple but there is integrity in all manifestations. Like we say there are judgments by 2 or 3 judges etc, but the administration of justice is through the Supreme Court and the temple of justice is also the Supreme Court",submitted Mr. Parasaran.

"There may be different manifestations of a divine spirit in a physical space of worship but the juridical person can only be one. The deity represents the spirit of Lord Ram that the Janma Bhoomi manifests. Juristic personality can not be ascribed to all the deities in the temple", observed Justice Chandrachud .

"Like there may be several trustees and several directors still the juristic person is only one" added Mr.Prasaran. "so it is a compendious person like a partnership" noted Justice Bobde.

"My argument was that one there has to be a belief, two it must be manifested in a physical form and three there must be proof of worship, where does their worship start? The proof of worship cannot just come from travellers" countered Dr.Dhawan.

"Whether the Lord's image is carved or whether the idol is movable, it does not matter. Juristic person comes from manifestation of the spirit", continued Mr. Prasaran.

"Would you apply this argument to every temple? There will be ramifications of accepting this argument" argued Justice Bobde.

"It has to be seen on a case by case basis" suggested Mr. Prasaran. "we have to be careful in applying your argument. you are saying that divinity can be ascribed to the janma bhoomi because of birth of Lord Ram",commented Justice Bobde.

"We have to lay down a doctrine here in deciding this case. Do we say that the birthplace itself is a such high religious significance that it is a juridical person? There might be places where an unmarried person may go to offer prayers for a perspective spouse, or where a childless couple may go, not just in Hinduism but also in Christianity ,do we see the perspective of the devotee because the place means everything to him? How far does the law cast the net?", probe Justice Chandrachud.

"It has to be seen whether it is found to be deeming fiction",said Mr. Parasaran

"Where to draw the line? Some imminent person's followers might say tomorrow that his birthplace is a juristic person? Say, can Sai Baba's birthplace be regarded as a juristic person…(Mr.Parasaran responded in the affirmative ,saying that the Madras High Court has already held so)…",pressed Justice Bhushan.

"We do not know but could the significance of the place of birth be on account of some astrological texts ?", asked Justice Bobde. As Mr. Parasaran spoke of how astronomy has predicted events fifty and even hundred years in advance, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi quipped, "would you say something to this Dr.Dhawan?".

"What astrology? There is one based on the sun which is followed all over the world, there is the other based on moon which is followed in India...another depends on the exact time, and a fourth is based on subsequent events. The rest is conjecture. But I am not imaginary...do we have an exact date or time on Lord Ram? No...I should be dead in a month or two as per my astrological chart (it must have been drawn wrong, joked Justice Bobde. It is based on my exact date of birth- 8.30, kamla Nehru hospital, caeserian mother , asserted Dr.Dhawan)...I am totally under the Saturn right now, not that I believe it. And probably my planets are between Rahu and Ketu, that is why he (Mr. Parasaran) is giving me such a hard time", remarked Dr. Dhawan.