Dr. Subramanian Swamy presented some impeccable arguments in the hearing
The case was referred to be heard by a Constitution Bench of the Court on January 9 this year. Earlier a three-judge Bench had declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench, which involved the reconsideration of the Court’s 1994 judgment in Ismail Farooqui v. Union of India.
The case has been posted for hearing next Tuesday.
Ram Temple adjourned to next Tuesday. The Muslim parties walked to uncharted area by first failing to get my Petition de listed then asking to hear my Petition first!! My point is simple : No matter who owns the land I and other Hindus has right to pray
— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) February 26, 2019
The case is now being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer .
A Five Judge bench presided over Ayodhya Ram Mandir Case which began today, 26th Feb 2019, in Supreme Court.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy presented some impeccable arguments in the hearing on the Babri Masjid and Ram Janmabhoomi land dispute wherein:
1. Swamy said that Faith cannot be subject to any judicial review, there is no need for any sort of scientific proof that Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya.
2. When there is a large number of people who believe it, then as per law their faith has to be acted upon.
3. Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, it was King of Rome’s Mother’s dream, there is no scientific proof ever given for that.
4. Section 295A of Indian Penal Code clarifies the 2nd point.
“Section 295A – 295A. Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.— Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”
5. The former PM PV Narasimha had made Government of India’s position clear to Supreme Court with his affidavit. Pgurus.com has also published an article on the same. To read more on this click here
6. The position was that, if they found the pre-existing Temple found under the disputed structure, the site will be handed over to Hindu Parties.
7. ASI had conducted an investigation under Allahabad High court and they found a large pre-existing temple.
Thus, Dr Swamy raised that its Fundamental Right of Hindus to pray at Ram Janambhoomi & Land be given to them.