From accepting Ayodhya to be Lord Ram's Janmabhoomi to recognising the Ram Chabutra close to the disputed site as the exact birthplace, the Muslim side's efforts to defend its title to the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site saw a major shift on Tuesday.

In accepting the Muslim argument that the Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard of the site was worshipped by Hindus as Lord Ram's birthplace, the Supreme Court out of curiosity asked the Muslim side's counsel if this meant that Lord Ram was born roughly 70-80 feet from the central dome of the mosque structure, the place to which both Muslims and Hindus are staking a claim of title.

This major concession by the Muslim side came during the 30th day of arguments when senior advocate Zafryab Jilani opened arguments to show how Hindu texts Ramcharitmanas and Valmiki Ramayana did not contain any reference to the Ram Janmasthan Mandir.

Nor do they contain any reference to an existing belief of such a temple or joint worship by Hindus and Muslims at the place, Jilani argued.

Advertising

Advertising

Jilani also bordered his arguments by picking threads from the Hindu side's contentions referring to 1587 document of Aini-i-Akbari to show there was no mosque in Ayodhya.

Jilani read out from the same document to prove a point that the Ain-i-Akbari did not contain any account that Emperor Babar destroyed any temple structure in Ayodhya.

He said that the book documented the destruction of temples in Banaras by Mahmood Ghazni but not of Babar, which disproves Hindu side's claim, said Jilani.

But the bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer cornered him over there being no mention of a mosque in Ayodhya as well.

"A question occurs to us – how is it that a mosque is not mentioned when historians record Ain-i-Akbari to contain the minutest details of the period... Because in the alternative, we may arrive at a thought that the mosque was not there," the bench said.

Jilani countered by saying that several mosques existed in Ayodhya and there was no occasion to mention the Babri mosque in the book as no specific importance was attached to it till the suit was filed in 1885.

When the bench said that this mosque had to be special as it was claimed to be constructed by Babar's commander and Governor Mir Baqi, Jilani argued that several mosques in the area were constructed by wazir/nawab who were the then Governors of the Emperor. However, he asked the Court not to draw a conclusion of absence of a mosque when Hindu side's pleadings suggest that a mosque was built over a temple destroyed by Babar.

Making good his point, Jilani said that no witness has testified to the worship of Lord Ram in the central dome of the mosque structure. He said that Hindu worshipped at the Ram Chabutra believing it to be the Ram Janmasthan and this is accepted by the Allahabad High Court as well.