Muslim sides deny 'Ram Chabutra' as birthplace of Rama

The Muslim parties on Wednesday denied before the Supreme Court that 'Ram Chabutra' outside the three-domes in Babri Masjid was the birth place of Lord Rama. It also maintained that there was no worship by the Hindus inside the disputed structure.

It was Hindu's belief that 'Ram Chabutra', 60 feet away from the central dome of the structure was the birth-place of Lord Rama, they said.

Senior advocate Zafaryab Jilani submitted before a five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that it was Hindus' belief that 'Ram Chabutra', 60 feet away from the central dome of the structure, was the birth-place of Lord Rama.

“Sunni Waqf Board does not accept that 'Ram Chabutra' is birth-place of Lord Rama,” he said, adding that Muslim parties, however, did not challenge the Faizabad district judge's order of May 18, 1886, in this regard.

The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, told the counsel that this was in line with what he accepted on Tuesday.

Jilani, for his part, again reiterated, “This is Hindus' belief”.

The top court also asked him about the evidence regarding 'janmasthan' being at the disputed site.

To this, he said, "One or two lines from 100s of pages of testimonies should not be picked up and those should be examined as a whole.”

“This belief that place of birth was below the middle dome was not there till 1989, none of the suits filed from 1950 to 1989 make such a claim,” he said.

During the hearing, the Muslim sides also questioned the authenticity of the ASI report, saying the Archaeology does not provide verifiable conclusions. The ASI has not brought any proof of the demolition of the temple and no party examined the ASI officials involved in the 'Ramjanmabhumi' dig exercise, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora said.

The bench, however, said, “On plain reading of the ASI report, on the face of it, it is a part of the record of the case unless the court itself is dissatisfied with the report or the parties find it incongruous. If you have not objected in the trial stage, none of your protests cannot be considered now in appeal.”

“You are asking us to sit in judgment of something that happened in the trial stage. You should have confronted the Commissioner and put all these questions about the infirmity of the ASI report at that point to him. You cannot come in appeal and say the report is infirm,” the bench added.