The Muslim parties in the Ayodhya land dispute case have urged the Supreme Court to remember that its judgement will “impact future generations” and to ensure its orders reflect India’s constitutional values, The Indian Express reported on Monday.
The seven parties seeking a mosque at the disputed site submitted their plea to mould the relief (narrowing down the arguments) on Saturday in a sealed cover, to which the lawyers for the Hindu side objected. The lawyers said that it encouraged addressing the court in secret while keeping other sides in the dark. The Muslim parties then made their plea public and released a statement on Sunday.
“Since the judgment of this court will have far-reaching implications, it is for the court to consider the consequences of its historic judgment by moulding the relief in a fashion that will reflect the constitutional values that this great nation espouses,” the statement said. “We hope that the court, in moulding the relief, upholds our multi-religious and multicultural values in resolving the issues confronting it,” the seven parties said in a joint, one-page statement on the question of ‘moulding’ of the relief.
“The decision by this hon’ble [honourable] court, whichever way it goes, will impact future generations,” the parties said, according to the Hindustan Times. “It will also have consequences for the polity of this country. This court’s decision may impact the minds of millions who are citizens of this country and who believe in constitutional values embraced by all when India was declared a republic on January 26, 1950.”
Deity Ramlalla Virajman, one of the parties in the Ayodhya land dispute case, on Saturday told the Supreme Court that the land adjacent to the site that was acquired by the Centre in 1993 would also be required for the “convenience of devotees” when a “grand temple” is built. The deity’s counsel said that both the disputed site and the area acquired by the government were important for the Hindus, and asked the top court to not provide any relief to disturb the plan.
Lawyers K Parasaran, CS Vaidyanathan and PV Yogeswaran submitted that “the small area which is the subject matter of the suit is one integral unit and is indivisible”. “…there are no good ground for moulding the relief in any manner which will impact the entire acquired area including the disputed area being utilised in accordance with the wishes of the Hindus, if they succeed in these proceedings”.
The lawyers of the deity said the Muslim parties were no longer entitled to the land or equitable relief as the Babri Masjid did not exist anymore. They also said the Nirmohi Akhara should not be given the land as it had questioned whether the deity’s birthplace can be considered a juristic entity. The Akhara also filed its written submission on Saturday.
The five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi reserved its judgment on Wednesday after a marathon 40-day hearing. The top court had allowed the parties to make the rest of the submissions in writing by Saturday. The verdict is expected before Chief Justice Gogoi retires on November 17.
- Why is the Sunni Waqf board now ready to give up the Babri Masjid land for a Ram temple?
- What if there’s an ancient temple under your office? Twitter parody of Ayodhya case sparks confusion
Now, follow and debate the day’s most significant stories on Scroll Exchange.