The arguments in one of the most talked-about cases in Indian history has come to an end today. The Supreme Court has finished hearing the arguments of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Waqf Board in 40 days. The five-judge bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has reserved its verdict in the 70-year-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case. The bench also comprises Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, and Justice S.A. Nazeer.
Reserving the verdict, Supreme Court has granted three days to contesting parties to file written note on the moulding of relief in the Ayodhya land dispute case.
Earlier, Muslim Waqf Board counsel Rajeev Dhavan argued that the Babri mosque belonged to Muslims and that they should be allowed to reconstruct the demolished structure.
"Right to reconstruct the building also belongs to us. The bricks are still there...The place still belongs to Waqf," Dhavan argued in court.
Wednesday witnessed a dramatic sequence of events after Rajeev Dhavan tore apart a pictorial map, which according to the Hindu Mahasabha lawyer Vikas Singh identified Lord Ram's birthplace at the disputed site. Later, Rajeev Dhavan clarified that he tore the map because he wanted to throw it away after Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi's permission. Here's look at the map that was torn apart:
In the first half of the day, Hindu parties argued and urged the court to correct the historical wrong where a mosque has been built on a site considered holy by Hindus.
In turn, Dhavan said that the Muslim parties seek restoration of Babri Masjid as it stood on December 5, 1992. "The demolished building belonged to us. The right to reconstruct it also belongs to us. Nobody else has the right," he submitted.
He even used unfavorable language against a lawyer for the Hindu side, who had argued on the Islamic law, and referred that the Babri Masjid was not an Islamic structure.
"The Sultanate began only in 1206. Islam is an extremely attractive faith for people living in a caste-ridden society," Dhavan submitted before the bench.
The court now has asked counsel from both sides to submit their written submissions on the moulding of relief in the matter.