Ayodhya case: Babur may not have built Babri Masjid, Supreme Court told

‘In fact, he may not have even visited Ayodhya’

August 28, 2019 10:17 pm | Updated 10:17 pm IST - NEW DELHI

A view of Supreme Court in New Delhi.

A view of Supreme Court in New Delhi.

The Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was told on Wednesday that the first Mughal Emperor, Babur, may not have built the ‘Babri Masjid’ structure in Ayodhya.

In fact, the court was told by senior advocate P.N. Mishra, who appears for the Ram Janmabhumi Punaruddhar Samiti, that Babur may not have even visited Ayodhya.

Mr. Mishra referred to three works — Ain-i-Akbari written by court historian Abu'l Fazl; Humayun nama ; and Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri or Memoirs of Jahangir — to argue his claim. He said none of them mentions that Babur built the disputed structure.

They said a work by Italian Niccolao Manucci, who is believed to have been a commander of Emperor Aurangazeb, also does not contain any reference to the disputed structure. Manucci did not include hearsay in his work. He had noted only incidents he had seen or experienced himself.

There was no reference also to Mir Baqi, a nobleman Muslims believe constructed the disputed structure for Babur.

Mr. Mishra said there might have been some demolition of a structure, probably a temple in the disputed area, during the period of Aurangazeb. He argued that the claim by Sunni Waqf Board that the disputed structure was built in the 16th century was without merit.

The structure had none of the features of a mosque. He said Hindus, from time immemorial, have believed and worshipped the Ramjanmabhumi as the birth place of Lord Ram.

Lawyers for the Ayodhya deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, have also been contending that the disputed Ramjanmabhumi is itself a deity and could not have been partitioned.

Senior advocate C.S. Vaidynathan, for the deity, had contended that if there was once a temple on the Ramjanmabhumi and people were worshipping there as the Lord’s birthplace, then nobody could possibly claim ownership by adverse possession. He had said on Wednesday that the Ayodhya deity was a perpetual minor. The property of a minor cannot be dealt with, sold or alienated. He had questioned how the Allahabad High Court, in its verdict in September 2010, could have handed over the property of the minor Ayodhya deity to anyone.

Top News Today

Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in


Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.