"No case has been made out to refer the case to a Constitution Bench," said Justice Ashok Bhushan, reading the judgement on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who headed Thursday's three-judge bench.
The bench was giving its verdict on petitions by some Muslims who had pleaded that the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court splitting the title dispute into three parts be heard by a Constitution Bench as it involved reconsideration of a 1994 ruling by a five-judge bench of the apex court which had held that mosque was not an essential part of Islam to offer namaz.
The petitioners had contended that while deciding the title suit in 2010, the Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court had referred to the observations made in the 1994 judgement by the five-judge bench.
However, in a dissenting ruling, Justice Abdul Nazeer said the judgement in the 1994 Ismail Farooqi case needed reconsideration and the matter should be referred to a larger seven-judge bench.
The majority judgement on Thursday held that a newly constituted bench will commence hearing from October 29 on a batch of petitions filed by both the sides -- Hindu and Muslim stakeholders -- challenging the 2010 judgement trifurcating the disputed site into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant.
"Observations in Ismail Farooqi case on mosques not being essential to religion was in the context of acquisition of mosque and made with respect to facts of that case. The observation made in Ismail Farooqi case has to be treated as only observation and not as the deciding factor of suit," Justice Bhushan observed.
In his minority judgement, Justice Nazeer said "questionable" observations in the Ismail Farooqi ruling were arrived at without undertaking a comprehensive examination and they had permeated the judgement in the main Ayodhya title suit.
He said a Constitution Bench must decide what constitutes essential practices of a religion and thereafter the Ayodhya land dispute should be heard.
Justice Nazeer also said that whether mosque was an essential part of Islam for offering namaz was to be decided considering the religious beliefs and requires detailed consideration.
He also said that the question of the 1994 Ismail Farooqi judgement needed to be referred to a seven-judge bench.
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reserved the order on the matter as Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for Uttar Pradesh said, "It (mediation) will not be advisable and prudent to take this path."
Senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, who appeared on behalf of the deity Ram Lala, opposed the mediation and told the court that the birth place of Lord Ram was a matter of faith and belief and they cannot take a contrary view in the mediation.
The panel will be headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla with Art of Living founder, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and senior advocate Shriram Panchu as its members.
Ordering the mediation, the five-judge constitution bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer barred both the print and visual media from reporting on the mediation proceedings.
It also barred those participating in the proceedings from speaking to the media.
The mediation proceedings would be held at Faizabad and would commence in a week.
The order pronounced by Chief Justice Gogoi did not pass any specific guidelines, leaving it to the mediators to take a call, and said that mediators could take any legal assistance that may be necessary.
The court has ordered the mediation to use the time available before the regular hearing of the matter during which all the parties to the dispute have been asked to complete the paper work relating to the dispute.
The court said the members of the committee were not experiencing any difficulty in the mediation process.
The court observed that the Chairman of the committee, Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla, had indicated progress in mediation so far and sought extension of time to complete the task.
The court refused to divulge the details on the mediation efforts.
"We will not tell you the progress made, that is confidential," replied the court to a counsel's query regarding the mediation. The court observed that the mediation process can be also extended, if required.
The court's observation came after a report was submitted on the mediation efforts.
"After the statement by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, there seems to be no possibility of promulgating an ordinance by the Centre. But, if any such action is initiated by the government, the Committee will challenge the move in the Supreme Court to restore status quo," said BMAC in a statement.
The Committee also accused the Yogi Adityanath government of catering to the needs of the people of only a particular religion in breach of the Constitutional mandate for the government to observe secular ethos.
"All religions must be respected and followers of all religions should be seen from the same point of view," it said.
The committee made the statement after discussing the issue in a meeting under the chairmanship of Yaseen Ali Usmani.
The Committee was briefed about the current status of the Ayodhya dispute in the Supreme Court, the statement said.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi on July 18 asked the three-member mediation panel led by former apex court judge F.M. Kalifulla to inform the court on the outcome of the mediation proceedings by August 1.
The report claimed that mediation has failed to reach substantial conclusion.
"The parties were never ready for mediation. In fact, mediation was imposed on them. Many proposals were floated but none was accepted by the parties to develop a consensus converging on a common point of interest," said an informed source.
"Efforts to streamline mediation also failed. In fact, everything was tried but with no success," said the source familiar with the developments on the mediation.
The other two members on the panel are spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, who have a reputation on developing consensus on contentious issues.
"Since the mediation has failed, the court should decide the matter. Many joint sittings were also organised but to no avail," added the source.
A total of 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment which was delivered on four civil suits.
It suggested that the 2.77 acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties.
The Supreme Court is slated to take up matter for hearing on the report on Friday at 2 p.m.
This is expected to be a crucial hearing as it will decide on the future of litigation on the Ayodhya dispute.
Initially, the apex court had extended the mediation till August 15 citing positive progress on the matter, but the party representing the Hindu side moved the court in July saying mediation was inconclusive.
The court then sought a report from the mediators on August 1 and fixed the matter for hearing for August 2.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi took note of the report of the three member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that its effort to find out an amicable resolution to the dispute have failed.
"We have received the report submitted by chairman of the committee, Justice Kalifulla. We have perused the same. Mediation proceedings have not resulted in any kind of final settlement, therefore, we have to proceed with the hearing of the appeal which will commence from August 6," said the bench, also comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose.
The apex court said the parties in the matter should be ready to start the hearing on the appeals which are before it.
It also said that the office of the registry should keep all the material ready for the perusal of the court for the hearing of the matter on day-to-day basis.
"We make it clear that the hearing of the case will be on day-to-day basis until the arguments are concluded," the bench said.
The mediation panel in its report submitted on Thursday said that the Hindu and the Muslim parties have not been able to find a solution to the vexatious dispute.
After the bench passed the order, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, raised several technical issues and said he will need 20 days to argue the various issues arising in the matter in detail and there should not be any curtailment on the hearing.
While he was raising different aspects of the matter and how the appeals have to be heard, the bench told him "don't remind us what we have to do".
"We know there are many aspects and we will deal with al these aspects. Let the hearing start," it said.
The court which had perused a report about the progress of mediation process till July 18, had said that its contents will remain confidential as per its earlier order.
The mediation panel, also comprising spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, was earlier granted time till August 15 by the apex court for completion of mediation after its earlier report had said that the mediators were "optimistic" about an amicable solution.
The apex court had on March 8 referred the matter to the panel of mediators and had asked them to hold in-camera proceedings and complete them within eight weeks.
The top court had fixed the seat for mediation process in Faizabad of Uttar Pradesh, around seven km from Ayodhya, and said adequate arrangements including the venue of the mediation, place of stay of the mediators, their security, travel should be forthwith arranged by the state government so that proceedings could commence immediately.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished.
"Let us begin the hearing," said a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had on August 2 taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that the mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months have not resulted in any final settlement.
Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties to the case, said while advancing the arguments that the structure has been in its exclusive possession.
The day-to-day hearing in the case commenced Tuesday after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation failed.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, that it was seeking management and possession of the area.
The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, began the day-to-day hearing by rejecting the plea of former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya seeking recording of the Ayodhya case proceedings.
The Akhara counsel told the apex court that their suit was basically for belongings, possession and management rights.
"I am a registered body. My suit is basically for belongings, possession and management rights," said the Akhara counsel.
He also told the court that the Akhara was in possession of the inner courtyard and Ram Janmasthan for hundreds of years.
"We were in possession of inner courtyard and Ram Janmasthan for hundreds of years. Outer courtyard having 'Sita Rasoi', 'Chabutra', 'Bhandar Grah' were in our possession and it was never a part of dispute in any case," the senior counsel told the bench.
The ongoing hearing also witnessed a heated exchange of words between the bench and senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for a Muslim party.
While the bench was asking the counsel for Nirmohi Akhara to confine his arguments to civil dispute and asking him to skip reading some written statements, Dhavan interfered and said perhaps there would not be any curtailment of arguments.
The CJI replied that there should not be any doubt in anybody's mind that the hearing or the arguments would be curtailed in any manner.
Dhavan did not stop and again said that is what he was saying and made some statement.
At this, the CJI said, "Dr Dhavan, keep the dignity of the court."
Dhavan said that he had replied to some questions only.
The bench told him, "Please keep in mind that you are officer of the Court and all we are saying that we are not going to curtail anybody's arguments".
The counsel representing Nirmohi Akhara claimed right over disputed 2.77 acre Ram janmabhumi-Babri Masjid land and said they have been possessing, managing and worshipping Lord Ram Lalla since time immemorial at the site.
"In any case, you have been given one-third of disputed area in preliminary decree by the High Court," the bench told the Nirmohi Akhara's counsel.
The counsel for Nirmohi Akhara referred to the Allahabad High Court findings on the issues framed in the land dispute.
"Before 1934, Muslims were offering regular prayers, High court had noted in the verdict," the bench observed.
The counsel for Nirmohi Akhara quoted the high court verdict and said that since 1934 to 1949, Muslims were offering Friday prayers at the disputed structure.
Citing another evidence, the counsel said that absence of provision for 'wuzu', by which Muslims wash hands and body parts before Namaz, at disputed site was interpreted by the high court to arrive at the conclusion that prayers were not being offered there since long and thus it had ceased to be a mosque.
The hearing in the case would continue in the afternoon.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished.
While the hearing traversed through the various aspects of the Hindu faith and philosophy, K. Parasaran, counsel representing Ram Lalla, proclaimed: "Faith itself is evidence". Worshipers believed in Lord Ram, and his birthplace, he said.
"The unshakeable faith in Lord Ram in itself is the evidence that the asthan is the birthplace of Ram", Parasaran submitted before the Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi.
While Parasaran drew a large canvas of philosophical aspect, citing Ramayana and Mahabharat to buttress his arguments, the court asked, "Whether Jesus Christ was born at Bethlehem? Has the question on origin/birthplace of any other religious figure been raised before any court in the world."
Parasaran replied that he would have to check this.
Drawing the court's attention to the deeper significance of faith, Parasaran argued the believers' faith was not misplaced in attributing the brithplace
To this, Justice S.A. Bobde queried, "have the idols placed in Babri mosque on December 22-23, 1949, been carbon-dated?"
Parasaran will continue his arguments on Thursday.
The title suit in the matter has been pending before the Supreme Court Since 2010. Two sides have moved the apex court against the Allahabad High Court verdict dividing the disputed land into three equal parts -- one-third each for the Hindus, the Muslims and the Nirmohi Akhara.
The apex court has initiated the hearing on 14 appeals, including the suits filed by the Ram Lalla Virajman, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Wakf board and four others.
Senior advocate K Prasaran, appearing for deity 'Ram Lalla', commenced arguments on before a five judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.
The counsel for Ram Lalla Virajmaan, the deity which itself has been made a party to the politically and religiously sensitive case, had on Wednesday told the court that the "unshakeable faith" of millions of believers is sufficient to prove that the entire disputed site at Ayodhya was the birth place of Lord Ram.
The bench -- also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer -- had last Friday taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, which said that the mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months, have not resulted in any final settlement.
A Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, reiterated that the day-to-day hearings will go on, and told the Muslim party that it may be allowed a break when required or when its turn comes up for arguing the case.
Soon after the hearing in the case started on Friday morning, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan filed the plea on behalf of his client and said it would be difficult for the parties if the top court conducts hearings on all five working days in a week.
"We don't get time for preparation of arguments. I will have to leave the brief, if this court goes on in this manner. This is not right. A matter like this cannot be rushed through," said Dhavan, adding that this was the beginning of the first appeal.
He termed the curent set-up of hearings as "inhuman" and "practically impossible" and said: "Cannot go on like this."
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi assured Dhavan that the top court would consider his grievances and revert to him at the earliest.
Usually, a Constitution bench conducts hearings thrice a week and takes up fresh and miscellaneous matters on the remaining two days.
The Ayodhya dispute case -- pending for several decades -- was fast-tracked with daily hearings after a Supreme Court appointed mediation committee failed to develop a consensus among the parties to arrive at an amicable resolution.
The daily hearings also assume significance, as the head of the Constitution bench Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is scheduled to retire mid-November.
The daily hearings involve a plethora of documents running into several thousand pages.
The 16th century Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in Faizabad district was razed by a mob on December 6, 1992 and a makeshift temple for Lord Rama was built at the site. Hindus say the mosque had been built at the birthplace of Lord Ram.
A Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is conducting the hearing on the vexed Ayodhya dispute.
Senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, informed the court that the archaeological study was carried out at the disputed site where the Babri mosque was demolished by a mob in December 1992.
The archaeological report concluded that various structures were found in various layers during the excavation.
For example, a passage to drain excess water resulting from the 'abhishek' of the deity was found.
The senior counsel informed the court about the stratigraphy methodology deployed by the archaeologists to identify the remains from the previous civilization which indicate a massive structure of public status existed which could be used by a large number of people especially for worship. This was absolutely different from a structure meant for private use.
"Besides the pottery, broken figure in terracotta, round vessel with legion... The oldest northwest black polish level (had) Ashokan Brahmi script," argued the counsel, establishing that there have been structures from 2nd and 3rd BC that point to religious structures at the disputed place.
Vaidyanathan also informed the bench that the imagery, sculptures within the structure (Babri Masjid) established it was not a mosque as such expression of imagery was not usually seen in mosques.
Merely because Muslims prayed there does not give them ownership over it, he contended.
Vaidynathan also referred to sculptures on the structural pillars, which he said had images of Garuda flanked by lions. He contended that such imagery was completely contrast to Islamic practices as they have no images of any human or animal in a mosque.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal moved the application before the court and the CJI agreed to list the matter.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan had filed a contempt petition last week, claiming to have received a letter from a professor in Chennai by the name of N. Shanmugam, threatening him over his appearance for the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case.
"The letter was sent C/o. Supreme Court Bar Association and the staff of Supreme Court Bar Association handed over the said letter to the petitioner on August 22, 2019," said the petition.
Dhavan filed the petition through his advocate-on-record Ejaz Maqbool and submitted a letter dated August 23, along with the letter received from Shanmugam for initiating suo moto contempt petition against the professor.
Dhavan said that he had also received a WhatsApp message from one Sanjay Kalal Bajrangi, which he described as an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice by the apex court.
"By sending the letter, the alleged contemnor has committed criminal contempt because he is intimidating a senior advocate who is appearing for a party/parties before the top court and discharging his duties as a senior advocate and he ought not to have sent such a letter and therefore the petitioner is constrained to file the present contempt petition," read the petition.
Dhavan urged the apex court to take suo moto cognizance and initiate contempt proceedings. He said he is not seeking prior permission from the Attorney General of India because he in the earlier round had appeared for Uttar Pradesh in the matters relating to the Babri Masjid/Ram Janmabhoomi.
"Also, the petitioner is not approaching the learned Solicitor General of India because he is appearing in the said matters for the state of Uttar Pradesh," Dhavan said in the petition.
Dhavan also said that in view of the facts, circumstances and the nature of the case, it would not be desirable for the petitioner to approach the Attorney or Solicitor General, seeking permission as prescribed by Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act. He had filed an application for exemption from seeking permission from both the law officers.
The apex court had appointed, on March 8, a 3-member mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court Judge F.M.I. Kalifulla and consisting of spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu to explore negotiations in the vexed Ayodhya dispute. The committee was disbanded after it submitted a report that it had failed to develop a consensus among parties to reach an amicable solution.
According to sources, this committee filed a short memorandum before the apex court seeking its permission to resume talks as parties across the religious divide have approached the panel seeking resumption of negotiations on the dispute. However, at the same time, the parties, according to the panel, do not want the Ayodhya title dispute, being heard by a Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, to stop.
The Sunni Waqf Board had purportedly written to the panel seeking resumption of the mediation process, as it was close to a negotiated settlement. However, the lawyer, representing it, said: "What is the relevance of this committee now? It has already been disbanded and post that the court has begun daily hearing on the matter. A letter from the board member was sent in personal capacity, and we were never consulted on it. The hearing is in progress in court."
A total of 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which was delivered on four civil suits. The High Court judgement partitioned the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The spokesperson of the Nirmohi Akhara also categorically denied any resumption of meditation process by the panel. "We do not require any mediation panel. Only in case, if the apex court wants us to directly talk with the Sunni Waqf Board, we will consider it. But, we are not ready to delay the case proceedings currently ongoing in the top court. The hearing must continue," said the spokesperson said.
In fact, the letter to the panel seeking resumption of mediation, was written by Nirvani Akhara, which is a defendant in the case and contesting against the Nirmohi Akhara.
A Constitution bench comprising five judges and headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi asked, on the 25th day of the hearing, after re-assembling in the post-lunch session, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is representing the Muslim parties', about their schedule to conclude the arguments in the case.
"It will help us to determine the time left for the writing the judgement on the matter," said the Chief Justice. Dhavan replied that he is looking forward to a judgement in the matter. Chief Justice Gogoi is retiring on November 17.
The Chief Justice asked Dhavan to discuss it internally with his team on the number required to complete their arguments, and then inform the court on the same. In fact, all the judge on the bench asked Dhavan to hold a discussion with the lawyers from the other side. The Constitution bench comprises Justices S.A. Bobde, D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer.
Dhavan said he will be very fast in making his submissions before the court. He is arguing for Sunni Waqf Board and others including original litigant M. Siddiq. Dhavan insisted on getting a mid-week break during the hearing, and the court granted him a break on Friday.
"You can take a break. But, the other counsels on the Muslim side can continue the arguments on Friday," observed the court. Dhavan replied, "I do not intend to break my argument", and also informed the court that his team is following a strict schedule and they are definitely aware about the speed of their argument.
However, the bench remarked though he may need a break, but his young team must be up and ready to continue, and maybe they like to work hard. At the beginning of the hearing, Dhavan had said he would need at least 20 days to argue the matter.
The daily hearing on the matter commenced on August 6. Fourteen appeals have been filed in the top court against the Allahabad High Court order, which partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land equally among Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The apex court was referring to a letter written by the Justice F.M. Kalifulla-led three-member mediation panel on Tuesday that sought the court's nod to resume talks in the Ayodhya dispute case.
The apex court made it clear that the daily hearings in the case will go on and the proceedings will continue to remain confidential.
On the 31st day of the Ayodhya title dispute hearing, senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani, appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board, said they do not accept the Ram Chabutra as birthplace of Lord Ram though they have not challenged the findings of the Faizabad court in 1885, which concluded Hindus had worshipped at the Chabutra as the deity's birthplace.
The Ram Chabutra is located in the outer courtyard of the disputed site, which is nearly 50 to 80 feet away from the central dome. On Tuesday, after facing probing questions from the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Jilani accepted Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya and the Ram Chabutra was his birthplace.
On Wednesday, Jilani, however, argued there is no documentary evidence to prove the inner courtyard of the Babri Masjid is the birthplace of Lord Ram.
At this, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud cited historical documents to bring out the perspective -- that prior to 1855 or the First War of Independence in 1857, Hindus and Muslims prayed inside the mosque, and the fence was built post 1857.
"The small platform or chabutra was set up to mark the birthplace of Lord Ram, as it symbolizes Hindus belief," he said.
Justice Ashok Bhushan, supporting this view, said that in 1855 or later, the railing put up, and it divided the birthplace.
"They could not go inside, as there was no way. Therefore, the Chabutra was constructed?" Justice Bhushan asked Jilani, who replied that there is no evidence to support this view.
Justice S.A. Bobde then put across some tough questions to the Muslims parties. "Is there any evidence, before 1855 and after the Babri Masjid was constructed in 1528, Hindus wanted to worship and Muslims denied them? Is there any evidence of a dispute, for example a clash between the two," he asked Jilani and asked for a chronology citing the first evidence when Hindus worshipped inside the boundary wall of the disputed structure.
Jilani submitted the first entry into the mosque premises by a non-Hindu was in 1858, when a Sikh came and put up a flag in the inner courtyard. At this, Justice Bobde said: "Sikhs believed in Lord Ram. There is a mention of Ram in their teachings."
The Muslim parties began the second leg of their argument by contesting the ASI report.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora recalled the observations of the Faizabad court in 1886, which refused to grant permission to the Nirmohi Akhara to worship Ram inside Babri Masjid.
"Most unfortunate, the masjid was built on land at the core of Hindu belief, but the event occurred 356 years ago... therefore, it is too late now to remedy the grievance," said Arora, arguing for the first time before the Constitution bench.
Referring to the ASI report on the excavation of the disputed site, she contended that archaeology is not an exact science, rather like psychology and not an exact science like natural sciences of physics and chemistry. Thus, she said, archaeology is social science and does not present a verifiable conclusion.
At this, Justice Bobde said: "If you are going to argue on archaeology being an inexact science unlike astrophysics, then in that case, we can hear you separately."
Arora told the court that Hindus claim on the dispute site is based on gazetteers, travelogues and this ASI report, which is "mere opinion and extremely weak evidence based on inferences".
"The ASI has not brought any proof of the demolition of the temple and no party examined the ASI officials involved in the excavation," she contended.
This led to Justice Bobde asking her about raising the objection in connection with the report in the district court, while Justice Chandrachud asked: "The ASI report was a Commissioner's report submitted to the court, and this official was not your witness to examine. If you had objections to the summary of the report, then you should have raised the questions when it brought on record. Why did you not?"
Arora questioned the methodology adopted by the ASI officials in finalizing the report, and insisted that Muslim parties have not accepted the ASI report, as it suffers from infirmities.
"The summary is over-reaching the report and it has palpable inconsistencies," she submitted, seeking to point out alleged malafide in the report.
Responding, Justice Chandrachud said then the Commissioner would have been the best person to answer.
Chief Justice Gogoi said that the counsel was asking the court to sit in judgment of something, which happened at the trial stage. "You should have confronted the Commissioner and brought out questions about the infirmity of the report, simply at that point to him. You cannot come in appeal and say the report is infirm," the CJI said.
As Arora insisted on the inconsistencies of the ASI report, Chief Justice Gogoi said that it is a part of record of the case unless the court itself is dissatisfied with the report or the parties find it inappropriate. "If you have not objected at the trial stage, none of your objections cannot be entertained now," he said.
Justice Bobde, supporting the Chief Justice, said: "Expert may have explanation, which we do not have."
The arguments will continue on Thursday.
The preview of the emerging war of words -- a heated argument between Hindu and Muslim parties' counsel -- was visible on Tuesday. A high-pitched intervention by Muslim parties on the submission of senior advocate C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, in support of the Archaeological Survey of India, tested the patience of Chief Justice Gogoi, who reprimanded the Muslim parties counsel for being repetitive.
Vaidyanathan, who had often remained calm and composed in the hearing, had also got irritated and increased his pitch on the microphone to counter the Muslim parties' counsel. For a while the courtroom plunged into chaos.
The Sunni Waqf Board, represented by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, will begin arguments on its suit on Friday, and are which is most likely to conclude in the middle of the week beginning on October 14. Dhavan had already made the bulk of the arguments, for the Muslim parties, for close to two weeks. He has been very consistent in arguments, and though he apologized for his conduct inside the courtroom, but never backtracked on the argument.
Dhavan had also adopted fire-fighting strategy to defend arguments of other counsel in his legal team. It will be interesting to see how he strategically places his arguments before the court � whether he invokes sharp responses from opposite parties or evokes queries from the bench.
After Muslim parties conclude arguments, the Hindu side will have two or three working days to counter them. Therefore, the crucial and nervy phase in the Ayodhya dispute has arrived. After a gap of nine years, the matter is up for adjudication, and now, merely a week is left in concluding final arguments on the matter.
It is likely that a competitive and emotionally charged atmosphere, in this crucial phase, would build in the remaining days, as seen by the heated arguments on Tuesday. The continuous interference by Muslim parties have already irritated senior advocates K. Parasaran, who is also representing Ram Lalla and Vaidyanathan. The counsel have maintained composure during intense arguments where several assertions were made on Hindu faith and belief.
The Hindu parties are in the process of establishing two crucial aspects before the Supreme Court to claim possession on the disputed land. The first is Ram Janmabhoomi -- the land below the central dome of the disputed structure as the birthplace of Lord Ram as a juristic entity, which is subject to law. And second, the credibility accorded to the ASI report by the Allahabad High Court in its judgement in 2010. The report had concluded a Hindu temple lay below the Babri Masjid.
Strategically, Hindu parties have consistently backed their arguments from the High Court judgement, which runs into nearly 6,000 pages, and raised specific queries in connection with faith and divinity from a legal perspective before the Supreme Court.
Parasaran made submissions on treating land as a juristic entity, which is subject to law. Muslims have contested this argument and claimed that the place under the central dome of the Babri Masjid was not the birthplace of Lord Ram. The court queried Parasaran that his arguments can have larger ramifications, as anybody can approach the court of law claiming divinity in land. He clarified that the court has to deal with case-wise on the issue citing diversity in belief in Hindu culture and tradition. This evoked sharp response from the opposite parties.
Vaidyanathan, countering the arguments against the ASI report, strategically contested Muslims parties' claims by citing High Court observations, included in the verdict, on the ASI report. This led to a huge argument where the opposite party claimed Vaidyanathan is making a statement in connection with a wall, which Muslims claims indicated an Idgah structure, is not apparently correct. It is expected that the day-long hearing on Thursday will be crucial for Hindu parties to make their case more firmly before the court.
The bench, after hearing the case for 40 days, concluded the arguments in the matter.
A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, granted three days to contesting parties to file written notes on 'moulding of relief' or narrowing down the issues on which the court is required to adjudicate.
The other members of the bench are justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
The order said that all calls made during this period will be recorded and scanned.
The four-page directive issued on October 31, which will be in force till December 28, prohibits people from posting defamatory remarks on social media platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, etc.
The order issued by Ayodhya district magistrate also restricts installation of any idol of any deity as well as victory procession on the day of the judgment.
Collecting stones or bricks has been banned and sale of kerosene and acid has also been stopped.
There's a blanket ban on any event, rally or cultural programme in Ayodhya.
The circular asks people to inform their friends and relatives, as well as group members, about the guidelines and ensure its compliance.
Meanwhile, ahead of the Supreme Court verdict, Muslims in Ayodhya have sought deployment of para-military forces in the holy city. The Muslims have said that deployment of para-military forces would give them a 'sense of assurance'.
Earlier, the Uttar Pradesh government had cancelled the leave of all police and administrative officers on the field until November 30 and issued directions to district police chiefs to ensure communal harmony.
Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has also asked his ministers to refrain from commenting on the Ayodhya issue.
Union Minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi has also said that there should not be any celebration on sensitive issues. He appealed to both the communities to maintain peace, after the verdict in Ram Janambhoomi case. The RSS, too, cancelled several events in November and has appealed to everyone to maintain peace.
As per sources, television channels have been asked to exercise utmost restraint while telecasting programmes pertaining to the Supreme Court verdict.
On Saturday, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued a historical judgment directing the central government to form a trust, within three months, which will build a temple at the disputed site.
The court has further directed the government to provide a five-acre land to the Sunni Waqf board at an alternate location for the construction of a mosque.