The Babri case is being heard by a 5-judge Constitution bench (File)
The Babri mosque was attacked in 1934 by Hindus who then trespassed in 1949 and demolished it in 1992, Muslim parties said in the Supreme Court on Monday. "Please do not go into all this. Your arguments should be relevant to issues," the top court said in response to the argument.
A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which commenced hearing arguments from the Muslim side on 17th day of the crucial proceedings, was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that the historical assertions and facts cannot be relied upon completely in deciding the lawsuits.
"In 1934, you (Hindus) break the masjid and in 1949, you commit trespass and finally, in 1992, you demolish the mosque...and after all the destructions, you say that the Britishers collaborated against Hindus and now say that our right must be protected," said Mr Dhavan, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board and one of the original litigants, M Siddiq.
Mr Dhavan said all these issues have been raised by the other side and he should be allowed to respond as this hearing was related to the "future of this country".
Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the deity, also got up and said that Mr Dhavan should deal with the case of plaintiff (Muslim parties).
"He is free to place his case, the way he wants to," the CJI said.
Mr Dhavan told the bench, which also comprised justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, that Justice SU Khan, one of the three judges of Allahabad HC, had noted down that historical fact cannot be the ground enough to decide the title.
"As far as title suit of civil nature is concerned, there is no room of historical facts and sometimes, they will lead to erroneous conclusions," Mr Dhavan said, quoting the HC verdict.
At the outset, Mr Dhavan referred to the issues which he would address and said that it had been argued by the Hindu parties that when Babur defeated Ibrahim Lodi, the nature of regime change was ''Darul Islam'' and in this form, the king does not automatically become the owner of the entire state.
Then he said that it has been argued that only Hindu law will apply in deciding the dispute and moreover the concept of ''Swayambhu'' (on its own) has been used to say that as Lord Ram appeared on his own at the land.
"The question of ''Swayambhu'' does not arise, because it was raised first time in 1989 when the suit was filed on behalf of ''Ram Lalla Virajman'' through a next friend," he said.
On the issue as to which law, Hindu or Muslim or both, would apply, Mr Dhavan said the "law of justice, equity and good conscience should be applied as this is the law of the land".