Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Gopal Singh Visharad (Plaintiff in Suit no. 1, Defendant no. 1 in Suit no. 4 and defendant no. 1 in Suit no. 5) resumed his arguments before the 5-Judge Constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
Mr. Kumar told the bench that he is making his submissions with reference to Mr. Parasaran's and Vaidyanathan's submissions that the place is itself a divine site and he being the worshipper his right to worship, which is a civil right, should not be curtailed.
Relying on an affidavit filed by Abdul Gani, Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that Mosque was erected by demolishing Ram temple, but despite that Hindus did not give up possession and were all along worshipping there.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar relying upon more such affidavits filed by Muslims in Section 145 proceedings, stated that after mosque was built, Hindus were still offering prayers there on all the days except Friday. He further submitted that in 1934 some part of the mosque was destroyed and all the involved Hindus got acquitted, thereafter Muslims stopped offering namaz there.
The bench asked the counsel whether those Muslim persons were cross examined to determine the correctness of the contents of the affidavits.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar accepted they were not cross examined, but after filing the affidavits, they appeared before the Magistrate, verified their statements, then only their statements were taken on record.
Thus, he submitted that "I am not saying what they said should be taken as gospel truth. But in absence of any objection to what they have said, inference can be drawn."
Justice Bobde asked how did these affidavits form part of the record before the High Court? Mr. Kumar said that they were filed in the suit which got transferred to the High Court, and before being transferred, the Civil Judge had noted that nothing has been pointed out to discredit the affidavits.
Citing various precedents, Mr. Ranjit Kumar explained about Hinduism. He said that Hinduism accommodates all kinds of beliefs and gives freedom to follow any belief. There is no single scripture, single religious practice or single God which have to be revered, Hinduism is just a way of life. This religion has composite character.
However, he further submitted that idol worship is predominant feature of Hindu religion. Temple worship is integral part of Hinduism, though there are some people who do not believe in idol worship.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that Britishers colonised India but they did not interfere with the matter of religion.
Mr. Kumar concluded his arguments stating that his right to worship is unfettered right which flows from centuries of worship at the disputed site. Adopting arguments by Mr. Parasaran and Mr. Vaidyanathan, Mr. Ranjit Kumar prayed for continuance of his right to worship.
Senior Advocate VN Sinha was asked by bench to resume his arguments for Hindu Mahasabha (Suit No. 5 Defendant 11), however he again stated that he is not ready with the required material. His prayer seeking more time was granted by the bench.
Thereafter, Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain resumed his arguments for Nirmohi Akhara. He said that there are two categories of disputes he will be dealing with, first, between Hindus and Hindus, second, between Hindus and Muslims.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain reiterated that he had Shebaitship. Justice Chandrachud told Mr. Jain that the moment he says that he has Shebaitship, he cannot claim title and his claim over 1/3rd of the property has to go straightaway.
Mr. Jain submitted that he is only claiming Shebait rights and possession.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain claimed that Suit no. 4 by Muslim parties is barred by limitation since the limitation ran from 1934 and not 1949 as claimed.
Justice Bobde asked Mr. Jain whether anybody has accepted his position as Shebait in their written statement. Mr. Jain said that all the Muslims have denied but all the Hindus have accepted, except one Umesh Chand Pandey.
Mr. Jain further submitted that only a Shebait can maintain a suit. He had the possession and management rights, however, 30 years later another party - Ram Lalla filed a suit claiming juridical character.
Upon being asked by Justice Chandrachud whether he is denying juridical character of the deity, Mr. Jain said that he is not denying.
Justice Bobde pointed out that orally he is not denying juridical character but in the written statement he has denied the same. Bench asked him to keep his vision straight and decide what really his line of argument is.
Justice Gogoi informed Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain that he is actually arguing against his own case and asked him to clarify his stance by tomorrow failing which bench would not be inclined to listen to his arguments any more.
Picture Source :
