SC poser after Ram Lalla wonders how after so many centuries they can offer proof of Ram's birth at the site

Ayodhya: The unshakeable faith of believers is evidence that the disputed site in Ayodhya was the birthplace of Lord Ram, Ram Lalla Virajman, party in the case, told the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Senior advocate K Prasaran, appearing for deity 'Ram Lalla', told a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the Ram Janmabhoomi has itself become personification of the deity and an object of worship for the Hindus.

He asked the court as to how after so many centuries the proof of Lord Ram's birth at the site can be shown.

"How can we prove after so many centuries that Lord Ram was born at the place," Prasaran told the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan & S A Nazeer.

He told the bench that Valmiki Ramayana mentions at three places that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya. The court then asked Prasaran if a question of this nature about birth of a religious figure has ever arisen in any court.

"Whether issues like birth of Jesus Christ at Bethlehem have been questioned and dealt with by any court in the world," the bench asked Prasaran, to which the senior advocate said that he will check and inform the court.

Nirmohi Akhara, another party in the case, has been seeking management and proprietary rights over the disputed site on various grounds, including that it was under its possession since time immemorial.

The court asked Nirmohi Akhara as to whether it has got any revenue records and oral evidence to establish its possession over the disputed site.

The Akhara, however, told the court that they had lost the documents establishing their possession of the site in a dacoity in 1982.

The apex court found that the body was ill-prepared on oral and documentary evidence. "Now, we are dealing with possession. You have to establish possession. If you have any revenue record in your favour then it is a very good piece of evidence in your favour," the bench said.

The counsel for the Akhara tried to argue that its lawsuit seeking re-possession of the site was not barred by the law of limitation.

(To receive our E-paper on whatsapp daily, please click here. We permit sharing of the paper's PDF on WhatsApp and other social media platforms.)

Free Press Journal