Ayodhya land dispute: The hearing began in the Supreme Court on whether the Ayodhya dispute can be sent to the arbitrator to save time. Earlier, during the hearing on 26th February, the Supreme Court had agreed to resolve the dispute through the arbitrator in its monitoring. The court had said that there should be an attempt to resolve the matter through the arbitrator even after having one percent chance.
Earlier, the Chief Justice had sought opinion from all the parties on the translation report of documents related to the Ayodhya case. Advocate Rajiv Dhawan, appearing on behalf of one side, said that he needs 8 to 12 weeks to check the translation of the copies. S Vaidyanathan, appearing on behalf of Ramlal, said that in December 2017, all the parties accepted the report of translation of the documents after accepting the test. Why are these people raising questions after two years?
Hearing in Supreme Court on 14 appeals (Ayodhya land dispute)
The Supreme Court is hearing 14 appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court’s September 2010 verdict. The court has also included the petition of the Center in the hearing, in which the government has demanded to return the non-disputed land to their owners. On Monday, the court asked BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to be present during the hearing. Swamy had filed a petition and said that he has the right to worship on the disputed land in Ayodhya and he should get it.
Five Judges Benching Hearings
A bench of 5 judges of the Supreme Court is hearing the case in the Ayodhya case. In addition to Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DC Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice SA Nazir are also included. Earlier this hearing was to be held on January 29. But that day Justice Bobde was not available. So the hearing was postponed.
Justice isolated from hearing (Ayodhya land dispute)
On January 10, the Constitutional Bench of five judges started hearing the matter. In addition to Justice Yu Lalit, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice NV Raman and Justice DC Chandrachud were also present. However, as soon as the hearing started in the court, Sunny Waqf’s lawyer Rajiv Dhawan questioned the appointment of Justice Uu Lalit in the bench of five judges. After this, Justice Lalit himself got separated from the bench. Dhawan had said that I want to remind Justice Lalit that you were the lawyer of former Chief Minister Kalyan Singh in 1994. This was a case of contempt associated with Babri case.
A new bench was made on January 25
After the controversy, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi reconstituted the bench on January 25 for hearing Ayodhya dispute. It included Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazir. The Chief Justice did not include Justice NV Raman in the new bench.
Earlier, the case was being heard by the three judges headed by former Chief Justice Deepak Mishra. After his retirement on October 2, the case was listed in the two-headed Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Later, the Chief Justice had fixed a bench of five judges for this.
The court also included the petition of the Center in the hearing
The court had to hear 14 petitions. Later, the petition of the central government was also included which demanded that non-disputed land of Ayodhya be returned to their original owners. Between 1991 and 1993, the then PV Narasimha Rao government of the center had acquired about 67.703 acres of land in and around the disputed site. The Supreme Court had instructed to maintain status quo on it in 2003.
2.77 acres is inside the disputed land
There is a dispute between Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Masjid in Ayodhya 2.77 acres. It is part of the 0.313 acres in this complex, on which the disputed structure was present and which was dropped on 6 December 1992. Ramlal is currently sitting in a portion of this 0.313 acres of land. On the Center’s plea, the BJP and the government say that we do not even touch the disputed land.
Allahabad High Court had ruled nine years ago (Ayodhya land dispute)
- The three-member bench of the Allahabad High Court had on September 30, 2010 ruled the ownership of the disputed premises of 2.77 acre with a majority of 2: 1. This land was divided equally into three sides – Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ramlala. Under the Hindu Act, Ramlalla is also a party in this matter.
- The Allahabad High Court had said that the place where Ramlalla’s idol is, should be given to Ramlala Viharman. Ram Chabootra and Sita should be given to the unhindered akhada in a kitchen area. The remaining one-third part is given to Sunni Waqf Board.
- This decision was not considered by the Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board and it was challenged in the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court stayed the Allahabad High Court’s decision on May 9, 2011. This case is pending before the Supreme Court.
152 total views, 4 views today