Ram mandir

The question of Ram Janmabhoomi cannot be discussed intelligently without first understanding the place of faith and belief in a religious claim.

Faith necessarily proceeds from belief. An atheist, by definition, does not accept the religious proposition on which such faith rests. The Court therefore cannot understand the nature of a religious claim by pretending that the underlying belief does not exist.

The Supreme Court itself recognized in the Ayodhya judgment that the faith and belief of Hindu devotees concerning Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman are matters of personal conscience and that the Court is not required to test the rationality or strength of that belief beyond determining whether it is genuinely held.

There is another important legal question.

In the case concerning Guru Granth Sahib, the Supreme Court recognized its capacity to be treated as a juristic person, arising from the religious significance accorded to it and its installation in a gurdwara. The same judgment also reaffirmed the established legal principle that a consecrated and publicly installed Hindu deity can possess juristic personality.

Then what is the objection to recognizing Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman as a juristic person?

In fact, in the Ayodhya proceedings, the legal personality of Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman was not contested. The Supreme Court itself dealt with the deity as the first plaintiff in Suit 5.

The distinction is important: the Court did not recognize the abstract geographical entity “Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi” as a juristic person. But that is entirely different from the legal personality of the deity Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman.

The historical and textual evidence must also be considered carefully.

The Valmiki Ramayana describes Ayodhya as a magnificent and highly developed city and gives an extensive account of its religious and civic life. More importantly, Ayodhya Kanda contains a description of Rama staying with Sita in a splendid temple of Lord Vishnu.

Therefore, it is historically unsound to suggest that the Ramayana presents Ayodhya merely as an ordinary secular settlement devoid of established religious institutions.

At the same time, historical claims must be stated accurately.

It would be incorrect to assert without qualification that Babur's own Baburnama contains a straightforward statement that he personally destroyed the Ram temple and constructed the mosque. The surviving historical record is more complicated; Beveridge's notes concerning the inscription and the missing portions of the Baburnama contain an interpretation concerning the replacement of a Hindu shrine, but the underlying diary material is incomplete.

That does not end the historical inquiry. It simply means that the claim must be evaluated through all available evidence—archaeology, inscriptions, architectural remains, historical accounts, documentary records and evidence of worship—rather than through one disputed quotation.

And that is precisely why consistency is important.

If the law can recognize the religious significance of Guru Granth Sahib on the basis of the faith and practice of its followers, and if it can recognize a consecrated Hindu deity as a juristic person, then Hindu belief concerning Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman cannot be dismissed merely because the religious concept is unfamiliar or different.

Different religions may have different conceptions of the Divine. The law need not declare one theology correct and another incorrect. It must, however, apply the same legal standard to both.

That is the real issue.

The belief is that Lord Ram was born at a place-  Justice Ashok Bhushan

- Your honour, It's not merely a belief but there are ample of evidence to corroborate and prove existence of Lord Ram.
1. In dwarka Lord Krishna was alleged to have theft a garland which was later found with Jamvant , krishna fought battle with Jamvant only to found later that it was same Jamvant who has fought war against Ravan in his army when he had incarnated as Lord Ram. Jamvant seek pardon and gave his daughter to Lord Krishna who became his wife. This clearly relates Krishna with Lord Ram.
2.Arjun has turned arrogant and Krishna wanted to curb down his arrogance, he send Hanuman for the mission , Lord Hanuman succeeded in realising Arjun of his arrogance and he bowed before Lord Hanuman, krishna came there at that moment they all had conversation. Lord Hanuman asked Lord Krishna to show his Ramavtar swaroop, which Krishna obliged him by saying come to dwarka I will show you my Ram swaroop there .
         This clearly establish relation between  Jamvant, Hanuman,   Lord Ram and Lord Krishna.
Evidence:- since evidence of dwarka has been found which prooves existence of Lord Krishna, Krishna reveals his Ramavtar and the characters of Treta are found during Krishna ,do we still have the doubt about the existence of Lord Ram.

Text mentioning where Lord Ram was Born. - Mr. Rajiv Dhavan.

Refer Skand puran, vaishnav khand ,ayodhya mahatma.

Pillars doesn't have God in them.
- Pillars doesn't necessarily have God in them, pillars have what we depict in them,which is indicative of our inclination. Lotus and dwarpal clearly indicates the mental inclination depicting some one at the dwar(gate) Ayodhya was a kingdom and a kingdom had dwarpal and lotus resembles Goddess Lakshmi. The main statue is established in the Garbh Grih . Since Babur and ibrahim lodhi had fascination of destroying Idols, which is mentioned in baburnama who knows they might have destroyed the Idols.

Tajmahal was indeed built by the money of Indian Taxpayers and by Indians there is no iota of doubt on it. But the labourers are concern about their wages and not of memory of shahjahan about his mumtaj. Suppose I am an engineer, you are a muslim you come to me for a design  to built a monument in the memory of your wife , I provide you my service am I concerned about your wife ? No it's my profession .

- The place become juristic person when Kush established Idol of Lord Ram when he left for his abode at the beginning of dwapar. The traces of it could be found at Kanak bhawan.

Lord Ram says Janmabhoomi is of more importance than that of Heaven, it itself shows manifestation
Of Janmabhoomi and it's importance.

Ram mandir hearing

Consequences of demolition of babri masjid.
Let me be very clear that I don't support demolition of babri masjid, because if everyone starts taking law in their own hand it detoriates justice system in the country. But since it's a legal issue I would like to bring it to the notice of honourable court that muslim invaders demolished numerous temples in India just to establish and spread their own religion. They build many masjid just besides Hindus temples, ASI has numerous evidence of the said facts,my question to Mr. Dhavan is that didn't it hampered the conscience and belief of Hindus. Didn't it had any repercussion on Hindus belief.
Disclaimer:- I don't support Revenge, muslims have every constitutional Rights available , but since you have raised the issue of consequences of demolition of babri masjid, in that context I have reminded you of the facts.

Plea on behalf of Idol, Plea claiming Janmabhoomi.

Plea claiming janmasthan should be given more importance than that of plea claiming of Idol, since Janmabhoomi came into Existence first than came the Idol. Idol has no relevance without the Existence of Lord Ram. Idol was established as per vedic rituals by his Son Kush after Lord Ram left for his abode. So Idol is dependent on the Existence of Lord Ram and the Janmabhoomi is known because  of Ram and the lineage of Ikshvaku. Kush was the inheritor of the Janmabhoomi and kingdom of Kush has reference with regards to dwarpar yug, which reference could be found in the Purana.
           Both the plea should be entertained and is legally binded  and Janmabhoomi has grater significance.

Janmabhoomi is is a juridical person.

With reference to skand puran where it's mentioned that by merely seeing the Janmabhoomi our all previous life sins get vanishes. It clearly states the importance of Janmabhoomi. The bhoomi belongs to the lineage of Ikshvaku and after Lord Ram left for his abode kush rebuilt the place at the beginning of dwapar. The reference of rebuilding of the structure by kush can be found at kanak bhavan.

Since Janmabhoomi alone has such Religious significance why can't be it a juridical person.

Aspect of belief and Janmabhoomi
The belief in the hindu religion is that Performing rituals at tirth has greater Religious importance. Ayodhya is one of the seven moksha tirth and hence it has much more Religious significance than other tirth in the country.
Since the belief emphasises more on the Janmabhoomi hence it has its own aspects which should not be hampered.

Article25- Sorry! If it hurts but at a time the truth has to be spoken. Does muslim only has the conscience and right to Religious practices,With all due respect Will a temple be allowed to be built beside mecca.
What should be emphasised and debated here his whose conscience and belief is being hurt here of Hindus or muslims.

Acceptance: Distinction of Janmabhoomi is evident.
If it's case of Janmabhoomi than all hands should be off the place including the court.

I only hope that Mr. Dhavan doesn't repudiate from his words!

Does the Sun Have a Territory? And Can an Idol Be a Juristic Person?

Does the Sun Have a Territory? And Can an Idol Be a Juristic Person?

The question of whether the Sun has a territory may appear unusual from the perspective of modern astronomy. However, within the framework of Vedic cosmology and Jyotisha, celestial bodies are not understood merely as physical objects. They are also associated with specific regions, directions, qualities, and influences. Therefore, the question deserves to be examined through both the traditional and modern perspectives.

In Vedic literature, the larger geographical and cosmological framework is often described through the concept of Jambudvipa. Within traditional Jyotisha, the nine planets—Navagraha—are associated with particular regions and directions. In some traditional classifications, the Sun is associated with Kalinga, a region historically connected with present-day Odisha. The association of Kalinga with the eastern direction is also consistent with its geographical position in the Indian subcontinent.

From this perspective, the statement that the Sun has a territory does not necessarily mean that the Sun physically resides over Kalinga. Rather, it may refer to a traditional system of planetary rulership, regional association, or symbolic influence. Such classifications belong to the interpretive framework of Vedic astrology and should not automatically be equated with the physical structure of the solar system described by modern astronomy.

The same distinction is useful when discussing the characteristics of planets described by Maharshi Ved Vyasa and other ancient authorities. Vedic and Puranic literature attributes specific colours, qualities, and symbolic characteristics to the planets. For example, Saturn is traditionally described as Neelanjana, associated with a dark or blue-black appearance. Modern spacecraft observations, including those of NASA’s Cassini mission, have provided detailed information about Saturn’s atmosphere, rings, and appearance.

These observations can be interesting points of comparison with traditional descriptions. However, a similarity between a traditional description and a modern observation does not, by itself, establish that the ancient text anticipated the modern scientific explanation in every detail. The comparison becomes more meaningful when the original Sanskrit terminology, context, and observational basis are examined carefully.

The traditional lineage of the Sun is also significant in Hindu sacred literature. The Sun is associated with Kashyapa and Aditi, while Lord Rama belongs to the Suryavamsa, or Solar Dynasty. This connection illustrates how cosmology, genealogy, and sacred history are interwoven in the Hindu worldview.

The question of whether an idol can be a juristic person belongs to a different but equally important domain: the relationship between religious belief and law.

In Hindu temple traditions, an idol is not merely regarded as a stone or metal object. Through prescribed rituals of Prana Pratishtha, the deity is ritually invoked and established as the living presence of the Divine. Worshippers offer food, clothing, ornaments, and other forms of service because they understand the deity to be spiritually present.

Temple practices, including the covering of idols during certain periods such as eclipses, are part of the ritual discipline associated with particular traditions. These practices reflect the religious understanding of the sanctity of the deity and the temple.

Indian law has also recognized, in certain contexts, a Hindu idol or deity as a juristic person. This means that the law may recognize the deity as a legal entity capable of holding property