New Delhi: The Sunni Waqf Board on Thursday told the Supreme Court that it was not willing to accept “tall claims” of Nirmohi Akhara regarding ‘shebait’ rights in Ayodhya, about it being there from centuries ago. Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan who is appearing for the Waqf Board and M Siddiq, who are appellants in the matter, told a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi that a distinction has to be made between the “credible and not credible” parts of the statements by the Akhara’s witnesses.
Bringing out the contradictions and distinguishing between the “credible” and “not incredible” parts of the statements, Dhavan said, “Somebody said Nirmohi Akhara came into being 700 years ago, some said 250 years ago… A witness said Lord Ram was there 12 lakh years ago… But I cannot get away from the fact that there are records that Nirmohi Akhara was there in 1855-56 and a suit was filed in 1885.” Indian Express quoted.
Accepting Nirmohis claim of being ‘shebaits’ of Ram Chabutara in the outer courtyard, the senior counsel claimed that some parts of their statement were not credible. He said, “The tall claims like they were there from time immemorial have to be rejected.”
Mr Dhavan pointed out contradictions in the statements of the Akhara’s witnesses before the bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.
Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan categorically submitted before the Supreme Court that there was no veracity in the testimonies of the witnesses belonging to the Nirmohi Akhada, one of the parties in the dispute. He said that Akhada had been claiming its shebait rights over the disputed property in question since 1734 but after the Allahabad High Court’s judgement in 2010 it began making shebait rights over Babri Masjid’s inner courtyard as well which was never in its possession. Dhavan pointed out that the `chabutara’ in the outer courtyard of the mosque was known to be Ram Janmabhoomi only from 1885.
Presenting photographs of Faizabad district magistrate K K Nair and City Magistrate Guru Dutt Singh taken in 1949, the senior advocate said that they had accepted that idols were placed through a conspiracy in the disputed Babri Masjid.
Drawing the attention of the court towards contradictions in the witnesses, the Senior Advocate Dhavan told the court that Akhada itself had accepted that the outer courtyard of the disputed property of the Babri Masjid was in their possession and Ram `chabutara’ was in the outer courtyard which is said to be the birth place of Ram.
As reported by India Tomorrow, Dhavan submitted that witness Number 18 identified as Acharya Mahant Bansidhar Das had confessed during his testimony that he had given evidence as a witness in courts as many as 200 times and that he had no qualms in speaking a lie. Senior advocate added that the said witness had also confessed that he would have no reluctance in speaking a lie in a case in which land belonging to a temple had been forcefully occupied.
Conceding in the court that he had no knowledge who built the Ram Janmabhoomi temple but Nirmohi Akhada had been taking care of it for the last 700 years, Acharya said that it was Mir Baqi who had demolished the Ram Mandir but he had not constructed the mosque over it.
Acharya conceded that Mir Baqi had left the space open as such and that reconstruction of the Ram Mandir was done by Gond Das Mahant of Nirmohi Akhada during the reign of Babur. Dhavan told the court that in his testimony, Acharya also confessed that Mir Baqi demolished the temple at the instance of a man named as Faqir, and not on the orders of Babur.
The next hearing has been deferred till September 11.