Counsel for Ram Lalla says there was a temple at site, SC asks what is evidence beyond faith,

■ Sunni Waqf Board’s claim of Idgah contested in court

The Supreme Court on Thursday was told that the inference that could be drawn from the excavated material at the disputed site at Ayodhya was that the “massive structure” below the now razed Babri Masjid was a temple and not the wall of an Idgah.

Rejecting the contention of the Sunni Waqf Board that the massive wall that was discovered in the course of excavation at the disputed site was Idgah wall, senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan on Wednesday told the fivejudge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that there was proof about the existence of missive structure of public character and the only inference that can be drawn was that it was a temple.

Besides CJI Gogoi, the bench comprises Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan sand Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.

Mr Vaidyanathan appearing for Ram Lalla and Sri Ram Janmabhooni Nyas said this while countering the arguments by the Sunni Wqf Board that the westword facing massive wall belonged to an Idgah.

Pointing holes in the shifting stance of the Sunni Waqf Board, Mr Vaidvanathan said that initially their position was that there was no structure at all, then they graduated to claim that it was an Islamic structure or an Idgah wall.

Asserting that the objects that have surfaced in the course of excavation suggested the massive structure was a temple, Mr Vaidyanathan said that the pillar bases found during excavation too suggested the existence of temple.

As Mr Vaidyanathan sought to rely on the faith and belief of the people over the centuries about the Janmasthan being the birthplace of Lord Rama, Justice Chandrachud said, “Faith and belief is a completely different argument. Of course, there cannot be evidence for faith and belief. But we are now on the argument of core evidence.”

The features that surfaced during excavations could be found in Buddhist Viharas, Justice Chandrachud said as Mr Vaidyanathan sought to put together all the objects that surfaced in the course of excavation to build a case of the existence of temple. Telling Mr Vaidyanathan that there was no dispute about the faith and belief, Justice Chandrachud said that the “onus to prove that it was indeed a temple is on you. What is the evidence that temple was eight centuries ago. There was no dispute about faith or belief. Its about evidence.”

◗ C.S. Vaidyanathan said that initially their (Sunni Board) position was that there was no structure at all, then they graduated to claim that it was an Islamic structure or an Idgah wall