New Delhi, September 23, 2019: An idol is not necessary at a holy place, the Supreme Court suggested on September 23 during the arguments in the Ayodhya Ram Janambhoomi case.
The deity can be in any form — even one without an idol, the court said on Day 29 of the hearing in the 60-year-old Mandir-Masjid dispute over 2.77 acres of land.
Citing an example, Justice SA Bobde, who is part of the five-judge constitution bench hearing the case, observed: “There can be deity without idol… in any forum… There is worship of Akash, empty space, in the Chidambaram temple of Tamil Nadu”.
Ayodhya’s 16th-century mosque was razed in 1992 by right-wing activists who believed that a temple marking the birthplace of the Lord Ram had to make way for the mosque of the Mughal emperor. The court had earlier questioned if there was any proof that the Lord Ram’s birth took place at the disputed site.
Ram Lalla, the infant Lord Ram, is one of the respondents in the dispute over the land believed to be his birthplace. Earlier this month, the Uttar Pradesh government increased the allowances for Ram Lalla from 26,200 to 30,000 rupees the biggest since 1992.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Sunni Wakf Board and other Muslim petitioners argued that the demand for a temple is not valid since there was no idol at the site.
Currently the idol of Ram Lalla is at a makeshift temple.
Dhavan argued that unless an idol is placed in a temple, it cannot qualify as a juristic person — which in legal parlance means a body or organization recognized by the law as being entitled to rights and duties like a human. Even the Guru Granth Sahib is not a juristic person, unless installed in a Gurudwara, he said.
And without an idol, a temple doesn’t qualify as a temple, he argued.
Appearing for the Hindu parties, senior advocate PS Narasimha explained the matter.
“At the Chidambaram temple, Nataraja is the deity… next to the Lord Nataraja, there is a screened space which is opened for few seconds to the devotees… when it is opened, you won’t see anything and it is called Chidambaram Rahasiyam (secret)… The deity has no form,” he added.
Dhavan also argued that all government gazettes confirm the existence of a mosque, but none on Ram Janambhoomi. Contending that the statements made by the witnesses (whose witnesses?) are unreliable, he said, “The Shia Wakf board lost the case in 1949 and woken up after has a century”.