Ram Lalla Counsel CS Vaidyanathan:'We Have To Live In Amity And Peace'

General News

Speaking to Republic TV, senior advocate and counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman CS Vaidyanathan said the Ayodhya verdict was a victory for people of India.

Written By Akhil Oka | Mumbai | Updated On:

Speaking exclusively to Republic TV, senior advocate and counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman CS Vaidyanathan said that the Supreme Court, through its Ayodhya verdict, had conveyed a message that everyone should live in amity and peace. He made it clear that the SC granting the entire disputed land in Ayodhya to the Hindus was not a win. In fact, Vaidyanathan remarked that the judgement was a victory for the people of India cutting across religion and language.  

Read: K Parasaran - 'Pitamaha' Of India Bar, Emerges Hero In Ayodhya Case

Vaidyanathan said, “I think the court has given a message — we have to live in amity and peace. We have to abide by the fraternity and brotherhood that is expected of us a fundamental duty under the Constitution And I think that is what the democratic spirit of the country requires us to do... I don’t look at it a win for my team or otherwise. I think it is a victory for the people of India irrespective of religion and language. It’s a much-needed closure. I think people should get on with their life in peace and amity.” 

Read: Indian-Americans Laud Supreme Court's Verdict On Ayodhya Case

'Credibility of ASI was fully accepted'

Reacting to the contention that the Hindus were potentially hampered by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report, he claimed that the credibility of the ASI was accepted. At the same time, he conceded that the ASI had limited time which made it difficult to give a conclusive finding. The counsel for Ram Lalla called upon the government to immediately act on the judgement.  

“The credibility of ASI was fully accepted. It is internationally renowned. ASI has been working extensively in Cambodia, Angkor Wat and various other institutions of archaeological importance. ASI has to draw conclusions on the basis of excavated material. Various factors like the history of the place, historical have to be taken into account before making the deduction. Anlo, ASI has its own limitations. Within the time constraint of three months, they could not arrive at a conclusive determination regard to whether it was ruins of a temple. But what they did find was that it was a non-Islamic structure,” he said when asked if the ASI report hampered his client’s case. On the government’s role in the future, Vaidyanathan opined, “I think the central government should immediately act upon the judgement. They have a role as a receiver and also to take further steps to entrust the land to a society or a trust as contemplated by the Act under which the land has been acquired. The Central and the UP government also have to take a decision with regard to identifying a land for the Muslims to set up up a mosque.” 

Read: Ayodhya Case: Appropriate Security Measures In SC, Says Delhi Joint CP

'Judges were extraordinarily patient with all parties'

Vaidyanathan also gave credit to the 5-member Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. He recalled that the judges were not only generous in giving ample time to all the parties but also spent considerable time going through the documents. He expressed his gratitude to the court for giving him a patient hearing.  

The Ram Lalla lawyer observed, “Full credit must be given to the court. The five honourable judges were extraordinarily patient with all the parties. I think they were very generous in giving time and effort going through the pleadings and papers and asking questions. The responses could take some time but I think the court was very very kind. And my experience in court was really nice. I do express my gratitude to the court for giving me a patient hearing.” 

Read: Ayodhya Case: Uttarakhand CM Appeals People To Not Spread Rumours

 

Published:
By 2030, 40% Indians will not have access to drinking water
SAVE WATER NOW
PEOPLE HAVE PLEDGED SO FAR
DO NOT MISS