Ayodhya Case: Supreme Court Asks How Birthplace Can Be Made Party To A Land Dispute
Members of the media gather outside of the India Supreme Court in New Delhi, India, (Photographer: Pankaj Nangia/Bloomberg)

Ayodhya Case: Supreme Court Asks How Birthplace Can Be Made Party To A Land Dispute


The Supreme Court asked ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’, one of the parties in the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute at Ayodhya, as to how the birthplace of a deity can be regarded as a “juristic person” having stake in the case.

The apex court, which was hearing the case on the third day, said that so far as Hindu deities are concerned, they have been treated as juristic person in law which can hold properties and institute a litigation.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, however, asked senior advocate K Parasaran appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, as to how ‘Janamsthanam’ (birth place) can file a suit in this matter as a party.

“Whether the birth place can be held to be a juristic person. So far as idols of deities are concerned, they had been held to be a juristic person,” said the bench, also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer.

Responding to the query, Parasaran told the bench, “In Hindu religion, idols are not necessary for a place to be regarded as a holy place of worship.... Rivers and Sun are also worshipped in Hinduism and birth place in itself can be treated as a juristic person.”

The law suit filed by the deity in the Ayodhya case has also made the birth place of Lord Ram as one of the parties.

Also read: Ayodhya Case Hearing: Muslims Weren’t Allowed To Enter Structure Since 1934, Nirmohi Akhara Tells Supreme Court

The bench then referred to a judgement of the Uttarakhand High Court in which the holy river Ganga was held to be a juristic entity entitled to pursue the litigation.

“The Uttarakhand High Court has said that the rivers are also juristic entities capable of being a party in the case,” the bench observed.

The bench then asked Parasaran to proceed with his submissions on other issues.

Parasaran alleged that the deity Ram Lalla Virajaman was not made a party when the magistrate had attached the disputed site and when the civil court granted injunction by appointing receiver in the case.

Highlighting the importance of birth place, Parasaran recited a Sanskrit Shloka, ‘Janani janmbhoomis cha swargadapi gariyasi’, and said that a birthplace is greater than heaven.

The argument would continue in the post-lunch session.

At the outset, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, said that the two separate lawsuits filed by Ram Lalla Virajman and Nirmohi Akhara respectively are at “loggerheads” of each other and if one is allowed then other goes automatically.

He suggested that the Muslim party can be asked to advance submissions in either of the law suits as only can be allowed legally.

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 land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

On Dec. 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished.

Also read: Ayodhya Dispute: Supreme Court To Commence Day-To-Day Hearing From Tuesday

BQ Install

Bloomberg Quint

Add BloombergQuint App to Home screen.