Follow Us
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, August 16
The imagery and sculptures within the Babri Masjid showed it was not a mosque as such things were not usually seen in mosques, counsel for Ram Lalla today told the Supreme Court, asserting that merely because Muslims prayed there didn’t give them ownership over the disputed site.
On seventh day of the hearing, senior counsel CS Vaidyanathan, representing Ram Lalla, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that a “massive” temple of Lord Ram dating back to the second century BC existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the Babri mosque was built.
Vaidyanathan, who had on Wednesday claimed exclusive right over the disputed 2.77 acre land, referred to the report of a court commissioner appointed to inspect the site in 1950 and the findings of the Archeological Survey of India (ASI).
“There existed a massive pillar-based structure dating back to the second century BC and the ASI survey was conclusive about there being a ‘mandap’ at the site with pillars,” he said, citing the ASI report that analysed the excavated materials from the disputed site. He said but there was no such material to show that it was a temple of only Lord Ram.
“But the pictures of the deities, including those of Lord Shiva, sculptures on the pillars of “Garuda” flanked by lions and the images of lotus amply indicate that it was a temple. These things are not found in mosques,” Vaidyanathan told the Bench, which is hearing cross appeals against the September 30, 2010, order of the Allahabad High Court dividing the disputed land equally among the deity, Normohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board.
“Keeping in mind the faith of Hindus and preponderance of probability, it would indicate that this was a temple of Lord Ram,” he said, adding: “Along with the massive old structure, other materials found during excavation suggested that it was a temple.”
The Bench, which also included Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, will resume hearing on Monday.
Referring to the ASI’s 2003 report, Vaidyanathan said it was prepared by experts and “there is nothing to discredit” its findings. “You also have a grave here. How would you interpret this,” the Bench sought to know.
“The grave belonged to a much later period,” Vaidyanathan said, adding that there were several layers of excavations and the grave was not found during the deep excavation.
Counsel for deity says…