Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, one of the five judges on the Constitution bench hearing the dispute, said the argument by Ram Lala Virajman counsel emphasizes that the Janmasthan was a juridical person since it was an object of worship.
"But what is the source of that worship?" the judge queried senior advocate K. Parasaran, counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman. Another judge on the bench also argued: "How can Janmasthan be juridical person?"
The bench sought clarity if the Janmasthan was worshipped due to the belief that Lord Ram was born there. "So can a source of worship be the benchmark for deciding whether something is a juridical person? asked the bench.
While arguing on the significance of the juridical person applicable to Janmasthan, which has been argued as a living entity, Parasaran emphasised that the presence of deity isn't the only test for being a juridical person.
"Rivers are worshipped and considered as dieties. According to Rig Veda, Sun is a deity. Sun is not an idol but he is still a deity. So we can say that Sun is a juridical person," argued Parasaran.
Since 2010, the title suit in the matter has been pending before the Supreme Court. Two sides have moved the apex court against the Allahabad High Court verdict dividing the disputed land into three equal portions 1/3rd each for Hindus, Muslims and Nirmohi Akhara.
The apex court has initiated the hearing on 14 appeals including the suits filed by the Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf board as well as four other petitions. The heating is still in progress.
( With inputs from IANS )