In terms of worship, a temple is a juridical person, subject to law, argued the counsel for Ram Lalla Virajman, establishing the significance of faith, on the fourth day of hearing on the Ayodhya dispute on Friday.
Senior advocate K Parasaran submitted before the Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that even hills were worshipped as deities and recalled the 'parikrama' in Thiruvannamalai and Chitrakoot.
For the past two days, Parasaran has been arguing on the essence of faith as evidence.
One of the judges on the bench queried that evidence had come that a 'parikrama' was noticed around the Janmasthan in Ayodhya too. Would that lend some sanctity to the Janmasthan?
Parasaran argued on the ground establishing the deity as a juridical person, subject to law.
He emphasized that in Hinduism, form was not essential. Deity in Hindu 'sashhras' could be the smallest of the smallest particle, even smaller than the atom.
"Hinduism is a way of life", he emphasized. He also cited the importance of temple as a juridical person in terms of worship.
During the argument, he drew the court's attention on the importance of Janmasthan.
"It is connected with the significance of that particular area. And that is why temple is not referred as 'Janmasthan'," argued Parasaran, drawing the distinction between place of birth and the temple.
Earlier, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing a Muslim party, raised objection to five-day-a-week hearing on the matter.
Dhavan said it would be difficult to prepare the case if the top court conducted the hearing on all five working days in a week.
"Cannot go on like this", said Dhavan, stating this was the the beginning of the first appeal.
Dhavan referred to the current set up for conducting the hearing as "inhuman" and "practically impossible".
"We dont get time for preparation for arguments," said Dhavan.
Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the court would consider "all your grievances and revert to you at the earliest"