 the counsel for the State of UP started the arguments with his submissions. He said that where lives are involved, certain issues need protection.){kind=link}
The Ayodhya land dispute case is being heard by the Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.
On Thursday (May 17) the counsel for the State of UP started the arguments with his submissions. He said that where lives are involved, certain issues need protection.
He said: “The ordinance was challenged in the writ petition. The chapter stands closed as the Supreme Court in the original petition has dismissed the petition with no appeals.”
He further referred to a 1964 case and said the other party can be termed as trespassers as the land never belonged to them. “All these issues have been dealt with by the high court. I would reargue all the issues again if required.”
He cited a judgment wherein the constitutionality of the entire Act was challenged and said: “All these cases say that procedural laws are to be followed but once the religious laws come into the picture, the rule changes.”
While referring to another case which dates back to the year 1996 to add support to his submissions, he said: “All the religious institutions to be treated equally. If not, it shall be violative of article 14 of the Constitution.”
He further cited a 1985 writ petition for the issuance of mandamus while dealing with the constitutionality of the Act.
“We can argue on procedures on the basis of the previously decided cases. But law is law,” the counsel said.
He reads the observations from the Ismail Farooqi case. “No reason as to why or how a mosque can get a significant status for a place to worship. Offering a prayer cannot be a part of essential or integral part of religious practice. It can only be possible if the place itself holds a significant position in the religion itself. Namaaz is an essential practice in the religion. But not essential and integral; it can be performed anywhere and requires no particular place.”
The counsel further said that if the particular place has a particular significance then only it can be said to be integral and essential. “Praying is essential, the manner in which it is done, is not essential,” he said.
He further pointed out: “God is only one. He may be in many forms. He wouldn’t like all this. Structure is not important, prayer is important. The 1992 dispute has disrupted the public order and peace and harmony of the country. Ayodhya is an integral part to the Hindu community as it is the birthplace of Lord Ram. When Babur built the masjid, he never intended it to be a place of worship but for Hindus, Ayodhya has always held an essential and integral position. Every place of prayer holds its own importance. However, there are certain places which hold extraordinary importance. At times, significant places are subject to questionable point of law.”
The matter was listed for next hearing to August 6, 2018.
—India Legal bureau