india

Updated: Aug 21, 2019 00:28 IST

The lawyer representing the deity, “Ram Lalla Virajman”, on Tuesday argued in the Supreme Court that a stone slab recovered from the rubble of the demolished Babri Masjid was a proof that a 12th century temple stood at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the mosque was built.

Senior counsel C S Vaidyanathan made this submission before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, hearing cross-appeals filed against the Allahabad high court verdict in the contentious Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

Babri Masjid was demolished by a mob on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, leading to the protracted legal battle.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad high court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and “Ram Lalla Virajman”.

Vaidyanathan said the Sunni Waqf Board and those in support of the mosque had disputed the recovery of the slab but had not questioned its authenticity.

Vaidyanathan argued, the slab had an inscription written in Sanskrit. It was deciphered by an epigraphist K V Ramesh and it said about the existence of a Vishnu Hari temple at the site in Ayodhya, which was the capital of Saketamandala kingdom, he said. This was constructed in the 12th century AD, Vaidyanathan said.

The reason why the Muslim side had disputed the slab was because the witness to the recovery was a reporter, who was working with “Panchajanya” magazine. The opposition was mainly because the magazine is run by an organisation affiliated to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the lawyer told the bench.

To the bench’s query on whether any questions were put to the reporter on the authenticity of the inscription, Vaidyanathan said there was no challenge to its authenticity.

Photographs of Babri Masjid taken in 1950 were referred to by Vaidyanathan to show the slab, which was stuck between other slabs.

The Muslim side questioned the recovery of the slab and claimed it was available in some museum and had been planted at the site. Vaidyanathan contended despite doubts over its recovery, the inscription on the slab was intrinsic evidence to the temple’s existence.

Vaidyanathan also referred to the testimony of some witnesses, including some Muslims to establish his case. One of them, Mohammed Kasim Ansari, had stated “what I call as Babri Masjid, they (Hindus) call Ram Janmabhoomi”, the lawyer said.

He claimed some Muslim witnesses also recalled seeing Hindus visit the place to attend fairs. Accounts of travellers, gazetteers, archaeological material and other inscriptions “demonstrate clearly that the place which is believed by Hindus is Ram Janmabhoomi is where a mosque was built subsequently.