Excavation hints temple at razed site: Lalla counsel

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday was told that the inference that could be drawn from the excavated material at the disputed site at Ayodhya was that the “massive structure” below the now razed Babri Masjid was a temple and not the wall of an Idgah.

Rejecting the contention of the Sunni Waqf Board that the massive wall that was discovered in the course of excavation at the disputed site was Idgah wall, senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan on Wednesday told the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that there was proof about the existence of missive structure of public character and the only inference that can be drawn was that it was a temple.

Besides CJI Gogoi, the bench comprises Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan sand Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Mr Vaidyanathan appearing for Ram Lalla and Sri Ram Janmabhooni Nyas said this while countering the arguments by the Sunni Wqf Board that the westword facing massive wall belonged to an Idgah.

Pointing holes in the shifting stance of the Sunni Waqf Board, Mr Vaidvanathan said that initially their position was that there was no structure at all, then they graduated to claim that it was an Islamic structure or an Idgah wall.

Asserting that the objects that have surfaced in the course of excavation suggested the massive structure was a temple, Mr Vaidyanathan said that the pillar bases found during excavation too suggested the existence of temple.

As Mr Vaidyanathan sought to rely on the faith and belief of the people over the centuries about the Janmasthan being the birthplace of Lord Rama, Justice Chandrachud said, “Faith and belief is a completely different argument. Of course, there cannot be evidence for faith and belief. But we are now on the argument of core evidence.”

The features that surfaced during excavations could be found in Buddhist Viharas, Justice Chandrachud said as Mr Vaidyanathan sought to put together all the objects that surfaced in the course of excavation to build a case of the existence of temple. Telling Mr Vaidyanathan that there was no dispute about the faith and belief, Justice Chandrachud said that the “onus to prove that it was indeed a temple is on you. What is the evidence that temple was eight centuries ago. There was no dispute about faith or belief. Its about evidence.”

Supplementing the arguments by Mr Vaidyanathan, senior counsel P.S. Narasimha referred to Skanda Puran, which says that a pilgrimage to Lord Rama’s place of birth would, besides other spiritual gains, lead to Moksha — an ultimate goal under Hindu religion.

Narasimha cited Skanda Puran as a proof backing his argument of faith and belief about disputed site being the birthplace of Lord Rama.

Both Vaidyanathan and Narasimnha were addressing the constitution bench in the course of their rejoinder arguments in response to reply given by Sunni Waqf Board to Ram Lalla and Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas’s claim of disputed site being the birthplace of Lord Rama.