During the hearing on Tuesday, one of the appellants Hari Shankar Jain, appearing in person, argued that the complex was built after demolishing Hindu temples and that the Quwwat-ul-Islam was built from the remains of the same.
“The genesis of this case from the very beginning is the admission that there were 27 Jain temples and those were demolished by Mohammedan invaders, first Qutubuddin Aibak…Why can’t it (temples) be restored?” Jain argued.
He referred to an iron pillar in the middle of the monument, which had Sanskrit shlokas or verses inscribed on it.
When the Court enquired which right was being invoked to seek such a prayer, Jain responded that once a property belonged to a deity, it always remained deity property.
“Once deity property, always deity property. It is never lost. After demolition, temple won’t lose divinity, sanctity. If deity survives, right to worship survives,” he submitted.
The Court sought further clarity on whether the right to worship was a statutory or a constitutional right, to which Jain responded that it was his constitutional right under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Jain sought for the order of the civil judge to be set aside on the ground that it had erroneously dismissed the suit without giving the applicant any rights.
Source: Barandbench
