To go on pilgrimage and worship at the Ramjanmabhoomi is an “essential part of Hindu religion and practice.”
Babri Masjid was not a mosque of particular significance to the Muslim community.
Therefore the mosque can be shifted as it will not affect the right to practise religion for Muslims by offering namaz in the number of other mosques in Ayodhya.
These are some of the submissions senior advocate K. Parasaran, appearing for the deity Ram Lalla, has given in the Supreme Court.
Mr. Parasaran is opposing a move by opposite parties in the Ramjanmabhoomi dispute to refer their appeals and counter-appeals to a Constitution Bench on the question whether a mosque has a “unique or special status” and is an essential part of the practice of Islam and namaz.
In his written submissions, Mr. Parasaran said: “Faith, practice of offering namaz is an essential part of their religion and therefore it may be performed at any mosque in Ayodhya.”
But he said, on the other hand, for the Hindus, Ayodhya “is said to be of particular significance because of the ancient belief that Lord Ram was born there.”
Mr. Parasaran argued that the fact that Babar commissioned Babri Masjid is only a ‘historical fact’ and not a fact of ‘particular religious significance.’
The point of controversy in the appeals is a 1994 judgment wherein the Supreme Court had observed that “Muslims can offer prayer anywhere, even in open”.
The 24-year-old Ismail Faruqui versus Union of India case had dealt with the acquisition of 67.703 acres of land in Ayodhya after the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. The constitutionality of the 'Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act of 1993' was under scanner.
