Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Muslim parties, sharpened his attack on the suit filed by Devki Nandan Agarwal as the next friend of Ram Lalla.
"The outer portion of the disputed site was illegally acquired by Vishwa Hindu Parishad which was backed by then BJP government," he contended. The Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Waqf Board does not accept the Ram Janmabhoomi as a juridical person, having legal rights.
Terming Agarwal's suit malicious, Dhavan also levelled the charge that Rs 25 crore was donated to usurp the temple. "Nirmohi Akhara is the Shebait, a devotee taking care of the deity, and they have full right to repair the temple, whereas Agarwal has no locus standi in this dispute," Dhavan told the court.
At one stage in the argument, Dhavan posed a query, asking the court as to who will get the title of the disputed land if it were not to be handed over to either the Akhara or the Waqf Board. "Lord Ram is not the litigant. He cannot be," he argued, asking how can a birthplace be converted into a juridical personality.
At this, Justice S.A. Bobde, one of the judges on the bench, asked Dhavan: "What is the deity, and are you suggesting form is necessary?"
As Dhavan replied that there has to be a manifestation, the judge noted: "God has to be formless". Dhavan then affirmed that form is not necessary, otherwise people will be claiming all over the place.
Dhavan then argued on the legal consequences of the deity's recognition as a juridical person, as the entire disputed land will be held by the deity.
"Lord Ram was installed in the Ram Janmabhoomi temple....and the Nyas maliciously encroached on the rights of Nirmohi Akhara," he insisted.
Dhavan also sought to nullify one of the Hindu parties' arguments, pinning down the birthplace of Lord Ram by relying on various religious historical texts, arguing that the idea of birthplace has been held on two strands - a belief and the other recognization of that area as deity to establish its distinctness.
"The consequences of this will be the area will become impregnable," he said, stating that if this situation were to arrive, then there can be no more claim for title and ownership. "Next friend is only Shebait by default," he argued.
A total of 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, which was delivered on four civil suits. The High Court judgement partitioned the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya equally among the three parties the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. A Constitution bench comprising of five judges and headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is conducting the daily hearing on the matter.
( With inputs from IANS )