![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri-Masjid.jpg?resize=297%2C170&ssl=1\")
<\/a>The senior lawyer extensively referred to various pictures and reports, including the ASI’s findings on the excavated materials from the disputed site, and said, however, there was no such material to show that it was a temple of only Lord Ram.<\/p>\nBut the pictures of the deities, including those of Lord Shiva, sculptures on the pillars of “Garuda” flanked by lions and the images of lotus amply indicated that it was a temple and moreover, these things were not found in mosques, Vaidyanathan submitted before the bench also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.<\/p>\n
“Keeping in mind the faith of Hindus and preponderance of probability, it would indicate that this was a temple of Lord Ram,” he said.<\/p>\n
“Along with the massive old structure, other materials found during excavation suggested that it was a temple,” the senior lawyer added.<\/p>\n
Referring to the Allahabad High Court order, he said one of the judges, Justice S U Khan, did not deal with the ASI report in his judgment and erroneously concluded that the mosque came up on a vacant land and on the ruins of a temple, while the other two judges took note of the report, which said there was a temple where the mosque came up.<\/p>\n
“We are deriving support from the archeological evidence that from the second century BC, there was a temple and additions were made during different periods” namely during the rules of the “Shungas”, the “Kushans” and the “Guptas”, Vaidyanathan said.<\/p>\n
“The question before us is not about the structure but whether it was of religious nature before the mosque was built there,” the bench said.<\/p>\n
It also said during the course of civilisation, buildings were “built and rebuilt” and proofs were needed to establish that there was a temple where the mosque came up.<\/p>\n
“It was a temple where the public had access. The basic foundation was the same, while the structure was rebuilt. The underlying foundation never changed. There was a total of 17 rows of pillar bases and each row had five pillars,” Vaidyanathan said.<\/p>\n
Referring to the ASI’s 2003 report, he said it was prepared by experts and “there is nothing to discredit” its findings.<\/p>\n
“You also have a grave here. How would you interpret this,” the bench asked.<\/p>\n
“The grave belonged to a much later period,” the senior lawyer said, adding that there were several layers of excavations and the grave was not found during the deep excavation.<\/p>\n
Vaidyanathan said archeological experts from both sides were present during the excavations, which were video-graphed, conclusions were arrived at after deliberations and “distinctive features of a temple” were found in the report.<\/p>\n
“Huge pillared-halls, different from normal residential buildings, have been found in the ASI’s report,” he said, adding that excavation was not done of the place where the deity, “Ram Lalla Virajman”, was presently placed in the makeshift temple.<\/p>\n
Vaidyanathan said the ASI analysed the excavated materials by dividing those into different time zones ruled by different dynasties.<\/p>\n
At the outset, the senior lawyer referred to the report of a court-appointed commissioner, who had annexed various photographs of pillars containing images of Hindu gods.<\/p>\n
He also submitted an album containing photographs of deities inside the structure and said mosques did not have such images inside them.<\/p>\n
On the issue of “namaz” being offered at the disputed site in the past, Vaidyanathan said offering prayers did not mean a valid possession of the place.<\/p>\n
“Offering prayers cannot mean valid possession unless you already own it. If prayer is offered on the street, it cannot be a proof to own it,” he said.<\/p>\n
The bench said the question was whether the disputed structure was “built as a mosque or being used as a mosque”.<\/p>\n
“No mosque will ordinarily contain pillars of this nature,” the lawyer said.<\/p>\n
He said during the 1950 inspection itself, it was very clear that there were various “structures, images” that belied the claim that it was a mosque.<\/p>\n
The advancing of arguments would continue on Monday.<\/p>\n
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and “Ram Lalla Virajman”.<\/p>\n
Babri Masjid was demolished by right-wing activists on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, leading to the protracted legal battle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A “massive” temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of Babri Masjid, a counsel for deity “Ram Lalla Virajman” told the Supreme Court on Friday. The counsel for Ram Lalla, a party to the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":57018,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[90],"tags":[1368,44567,45333,21141,45332],"class_list":["post-57169","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bar-bench-firm-news","tag-ayodhya-case","tag-ayodhyas-ram-janmabhoomi-babri-masjid-land-dispute-case","tag-disputed-site","tag-disputed-site-in-ayodhya","tag-temple-existed"],"yoast_head":"\n
Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC - Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A "massive" temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of - Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC - Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A "massive" temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of - Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-08-16T16:28:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"320\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"157\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-16T16:28:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc\"},\"wordCount\":915,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1\",\"keywords\":[\"Ayodhya case\",\"Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case\",\"disputed site\",\"disputed site in Ayodhya\",\"temple existed\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Bar, Bench & Firm News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc\",\"name\":\"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC - Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-08-16T16:28:53+00:00\",\"description\":\"A \\\"massive\\\" temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of - Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2019\\\/08\\\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1\",\"width\":320,\"height\":157},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bar, Bench & Firm News\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/category\\\/bar-bench-firm-news\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates\",\"description\":\"Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Legal News India for Advocates, Lawyers & Law Students\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal News India: Supreme Court, High Courts & Govt Updates\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal News India for Advocates, Lawyers & Law Students\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/538552_367793346590451_81997783_n.jpg?fit=250%2C250&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/i0.wp.com\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/538552_367793346590451_81997783_n.jpg?fit=250%2C250&ssl=1\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Legal News India: Supreme Court, High Courts & Govt Updates\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/news\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC - Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates","description":"A \"massive\" temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of - Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC - Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates","og_description":"A \"massive\" temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of - Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc","og_site_name":"Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2019-08-16T16:28:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":320,"height":157,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC","datePublished":"2019-08-16T16:28:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc"},"wordCount":915,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1","keywords":["Ayodhya case","Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case","disputed site","disputed site in Ayodhya","temple existed"],"articleSection":["Bar, Bench & Firm News"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc","name":"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC - Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1","datePublished":"2019-08-16T16:28:53+00:00","description":"A \"massive\" temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC (Before Christ), existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of - Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1","width":320,"height":157},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-temple-existed-before-babri-masjid-came-up-at-disputed-site-counsel-for-deity-to-sc#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bar, Bench & Firm News","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/category\/bar-bench-firm-news"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Ayodhya case: Temple existed before Babri Masjid came up at disputed site, counsel for deity to SC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/","name":"Legal News India - Supreme Court & High Court Updates","description":"Get the latest legal news from the Supreme Court, High Courts, and government. Essential updates on judgements, acts, and in-depth analysis for lawyers, advocates, and law students in India.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Legal News India for Advocates, Lawyers & Law Students","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#organization","name":"Legal News India: Supreme Court, High Courts & Govt Updates","alternateName":"Legal News India for Advocates, Lawyers & Law Students","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/05\/538552_367793346590451_81997783_n.jpg?fit=250%2C250&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2018\/05\/538552_367793346590451_81997783_n.jpg?fit=250%2C250&ssl=1","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Legal News India: Supreme Court, High Courts & Govt Updates"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-2.jpg?fit=320%2C157&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":57154,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-on-5th-day-of-hearing-arguments-in-supreme-court-on-whether-temple-existed-on-disputed-site","url_meta":{"origin":57169,"position":0},"title":"Ayodhya: On 5th day of hearing, arguments in Supreme Court on whether temple existed on disputed site","author":"Legal India Admin","date":"August 13, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Arguments on whether a temple existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya were presented on Tuesday before the Supreme Court which heard the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the fifth day. Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, advanced arguments on whether there was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Court, Judiciary & Legal System"","block_context":{"text":"Court, Judiciary & Legal System","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/category\/court-judiciary-legal-system"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/sc.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":57125,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-land-dispute-crucial-day-to-day-hearing-of-case-in-supreme-court-to-enter-5th-day","url_meta":{"origin":57169,"position":1},"title":"Ayodhya land dispute: Crucial day-to-day hearing of case in Supreme Court to enter 5th day","author":"Legal India Admin","date":"August 12, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"The crucial day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in the Supreme Court will entre the 5th day on Tuesday with the counsel for the deity, 'Ram Lalla Virajman', re-commencing arguments for claim over the entire 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya. The hearing before a 5-judge Constitution\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Court, Judiciary & Legal System"","block_context":{"text":"Court, Judiciary & Legal System","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/category\/court-judiciary-legal-system"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/download-35.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":57984,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/supreme-court-on-ayodhya-case-temple-at-disputed-site-and-to-allot-alternative-land-for-mosque","url_meta":{"origin":57169,"position":2},"title":"Supreme Court on Ayodhya case: Temple at disputed site and to allot alternative land for mosque.","author":"Legal India Admin","date":"November 9, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court in a unanimous verdict on Saturday cleared the way for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya, and directed the Centre to allot a 5-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque. In one of the most important and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "High Profile Cases"","block_context":{"text":"High Profile Cases","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/category\/high-profile-cases"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/11\/ayodhya-verdict.jpg?fit=620%2C464&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/11\/ayodhya-verdict.jpg?fit=620%2C464&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/11\/ayodhya-verdict.jpg?fit=620%2C464&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x"},"classes":[]},{"id":26957,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-sc-nod-for-tarpaulin-change-dont-disturb-status-quo","url_meta":{"origin":57169,"position":3},"title":"Ayodhya: SC nod for tarpaulin change, don’t disturb status quo","author":"Legal India Admin","date":"February 26, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"The authorities to change the tarpaulin and ropes at Lord Rama's make-shift temple in Ayodhya without disturbing the status quo on the 67 acre land adjacent to the disputed site has been permited by the Supreme Court of India. A Bench comprising justices Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai told\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Top Law News"","block_context":{"text":"Top Law News","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/category\/top-law-news"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":26657,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/status-quo-on-land-near-ayodhya-site-should-not-be-disturbed","url_meta":{"origin":57169,"position":4},"title":"Status quo on land near Ayodhya site should not be disturbed:","author":"Legal India Admin","date":"January 28, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court made it clear that status quo ordered on 67 acre land Allahabad High Courtadjacent to the disputed site in Ayodhya should not be disturbed while carrying out excavation activity in the vicinity. \"We are hopeful that this status quo will continue. While doing the excavation this status\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Top Law News"","block_context":{"text":"Top Law News","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/category\/top-law-news"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":57078,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/ayodhya-case-muslim-party-objects-hearing-on-all-days-of-week-says-it-cant-be-rushed-through","url_meta":{"origin":57169,"position":5},"title":"Ayodhya case: Muslim party objects hearing on all days of week, says it can’t be ‘rushed through’","author":"Legal India Admin","date":"August 9, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"A Muslim party on Friday objected in the Supreme Court five-days-a-week hearing of the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case in Ayodhya, saying it will \"not be able to assist\" the court if the hearing is \"rushed through\". The submission was made by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Top Law News"","block_context":{"text":"Top Law News","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/category\/top-law-news"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri-Masjid.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]}],"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6H5Bf-eS5","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57169","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57169"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57169\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/57018"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57169"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57169"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57169"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2019\/08\/Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri-Masjid.jpg?ssl=1\")
<\/a>The senior lawyer extensively referred to various pictures and reports, including the ASI’s findings on the excavated materials from the disputed site, and said, however, there was no such material to show that it was a temple of only Lord Ram.<\/p>\n