Justice Bobde asked if the idols at the site — which were later attached by the receiver on December 29, 1949 — were carbon dated. Parasaran replied in the negative. Justice Bobde asked if the idols at the site — which were later attached by the receiver on December 29, 1949 — were carbon dated. Parasaran replied in the negative.

FACING THE task of adjudicating on the birthplace of Ram, the Supreme Court on Wednesday asked if any question regarding the birth of “a prophet” or Jesus had ever been raised in any other court in the world.

“Has a question like the present one (on the birth of Ram) been raised about the birth of a prophet or whether Jesus was born in Bethlehem, in any court anywhere in the world,” Justice S A Bobde asked Senior Counsel K Parasaran, who appeared for the deity Ramlalla. The counsel replied that he would “check up”.

Justice Bobde is part of a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and including Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Abdul Nazeer, which is hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute case.

Parasaran said “history books establish the fact that there was a temple at the site”. He said there are references to Ayodhya being the birthplace of Ram in other literature like the Valmiki Ramayana. “It is the unshakeable faith of believers that this is the birthplace of Ram. That itself is the greatest evidence,” he said.

Parasaran quoted from the Allahabad HC judgment which referred to the March 1886 decision of the Faizabad District Judge FEA Chamier, dismissing an appeal filed by Mahant Raghubar Das claiming right over a part of the disputed site.

The HC, Parasaran said, went on to add that “from the judgment of the learned judge deciding the first appeal, it appears that he visited the spot on 17.03.1886, and, in the light of what he noticed on spot inspection, he recorded certain facts in the judgment, namely the masjid built by Emperor Babar stands on the border of town Ayodhya west and south and is clear of habitations. He expressed his anguish that it is most unfortunate that a masjid should have been built on a land especially held sacred by Hindus but as that event occurred 358 years ago he found it too late in the day to reverse the process and said that the parties should maintain status quo”.

The judge “was not a Hindu”, the senior counsel said.

Justice Bobde asked if the idols at the site — which were later attached by the receiver on December 29, 1949 — were carbon dated. Parasaran replied in the negative.

Earlier in the day, the bench cut short the arguments of the counsel representing the Nirmohi Akhara, noting that he was unable to produce records to substantiate the Akhara’s claim over the disputed 2.77 acres of land.

“Since when you existed is one question. But show us the evidence, like revenue records etc, to prove that you exercised your right,” Justice Chandrachud told Senior Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, as the latter submitted that the HC had found that the Akhara had been in existence since at least 1734.

Jain told the bench that he did not have all the records as there was a dacoity in 1982. He said the records he was relying on were already cited in the HC judgment.

But the bench reminded him that this was the first appeal and told him to “show the original records”. As he struggled with his reply, the bench said it would hear the appeal filed by Ramlalla, and he should, meanwhile, document and produce the records he was relying on to establish his case.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App.