india

Updated: Sep 18, 2019 02:48 IST

The five-judge Supreme Court bench hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on Tuesday asked the Hindu and Muslim parties to share a tentative schedule for concluding their arguments.

On the 25th day of hearing in the case, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi, who is heading the bench, said, “After we know of the schedule, we will know how much time we have to write the judgment.”

Justice Gogoi retires as the CJI on November 17.

Gogoi told senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is arguing on behalf of the Muslim parties, to sit with other advocates andinform the bench later about the number of days they would take to conclude their arguments. Hindu parties, too ,were asked to tell the court how much time they will take to reply to arguments made by the Muslim parties.

Earlier in the day, the Muslim parties attacked the “archaeological evidence” relied on by the Hindus, saying that pillars found at the disputed site do not conclusively prove that there had been a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. Hindu groups say the 16th century Babri Masjid was built on the ruins of a Ram temple at the site that marks the birthplace of Hindu god Ram. The mosque was demolished in 1992.

Dhavan, appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board and others, including original litigant M Siddiq, argued that “the 14 kasauti pillars found at the site has no image of god on it. What is being relied on is the pictorial representation of lotus associated with Vishnu on the pillars. Flowers and design exist in Islamic art all over.”

One of the Hindu parties, the Nirmohi Akahara, had earlier staked claim on the disputed site by suggesting that there were pictures showing images of human beings and animals on pillars that discount the claim that the structure on the disputed site was a mosque. Images (inside the Babri Masjid) are contrary to Islamic belief -- Islam does not have image in their place of worship, whether of a human being or animals, it had argued.

On Tuesday, Dhavan countered these arguments, saying that these pillars could have come from anywhere.

“There is no direct evidence of gods on the pillars. They (Hindus) have to show some image of god to press their case,” argued Dhavan.

But the bench appeared to not be convinced by the argument, and justice SA Bobde asked Dhavan, “If figures like lotus are found in mosques, is there any evidence that such pictures are found in any other mosques?”