Follow Us:
Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Ayodhya land dispute HIGHLIGHTS: Supreme Court adjourns hearing, VHP objects

Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid Case Supreme Court Today Live Updates: Protests broke out outside the apex court over the delay in hearing on Thursday.

By: Express Web Desk | New Delhi | Updated: January 10, 2019 2:55:34 pm
supreme court, ayodhya case news, ayodhya mandir, ram mandir, ayodhya ram mandir, ram mandir case, ram mandir case news, babri masjid ayodhya, babri masjid, ayodhya ram mandir verdict, ayodhya mandir, ayodhya case, ram mandir live, supreme court ayodhya, ayodhya supreme court, ayodhya news, ayodhya case, ayodhya case live, ram mandir news, ram mandir ayodhya news, latest news, supreme court ayodhya Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case LIVE updates: Protests broke out outside the Supreme Court on Thursday. (Express photo/Tashi Tobgyal)

Ayodhya Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case LIVE updates: A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, on Thursday adjourned the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute matter till January 29 after one of the judges recused himself from the case. Justice U U Lalit withdrew from the case after advocate Rajeev Dhavan pointed out that he had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in a criminal case related to the dispute in 1994. A newly constituted-bench will be formed ahead of the hearing at the end of the month.

The bench is expected to hear 14 petitions against the Allahabad High Court verdict of September 30, 2010, ordering a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, giving a third each to the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Wakf Board, Uttar Pradesh, and Ramlalla Virajman. On January 4, the apex court had said that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by “the appropriate bench, as may be constituted”. On October 29 last year, the court had fixed the matter for hearing in the first week of January. An application for an urgent hearing by advancing the date, filed by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, had been turned down by the top court.

Live Blog

Supreme Court will begin hearing the Ram Mandir dispute today. Get all latest updates here.

Highlights

    13:44 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Protests break out outside Supreme Court


    Right-wing groups protest outside Supreme Court over the delay in Ayodhya hearing on Thursday. (Express photo/Tashi Tobgyal)

    13:25 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    VHP objects to Justice Lalit's withdrawal from case

    On Justice Lalit's recusal, the Hindu body said, "The other objection on Justice U U Lalit being on the bench is painful. Justice Lalit has never appeared in the Ram Janmabhoomi matters; neither at the trial stage nor in the appeal. His being Counsel of Shri Kalyan Singh in 1997 in the contempt matter casts no shadow on his hearing the present appeals. The objections were merely ploys to delay further." 

    13:16 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    VHP unhappy with adjournment of case

    Reacting to the adjournment, Vishva Hindu Parishad, in a statement said, "Under the circumstances, an adjournment from 10 January to 29 January is rather long. Hindus are known for their patience and forbearance. The judicial system still has the responsibility of deciding the matters without undue delays. The country hopes that the Hon’ble Chief Justice, heading the present Bench shall decisively act to prevent the delaying tactics of the opposite party." 

    11:54 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Judge exits bench, Ayodhya matter hearing on January 29 now

    The Supreme Court today adjourned the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute till January 29 when it will decide the schedule of hearing in the case. The case was adjourned after Justice Uday U Lalit recused himself from the case for previously being a lawyer in a related case. The court will now constitute a new bench ahead of the next hearing. Read full story.

    11:34 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    See if translations are correct: CJI to SC registry

    But whether the translations are right or not is not clear, the CJI said, further directing the SC registry to physically examine the records to determine their correctness.

    11:27 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    11:27 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    11:16 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    When will case be ready for hearing? CJI asks SC registry

    CJI Gogoi also asked the apex court’s registry to submit a report by January 29 on the amount of time that would be needed to hear the matter. 

    11:14 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Advocate Dhavan questions participation of five-judge bench

    While Dhavan pointed out that there was a judicial order referring the matter to a three-judge bench and wondered could it be heard by five judges, CJI Gogoi cited SC rules to overrule him and said there was nothing wrong with the procedure.

    11:03 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Fresh bench to be formed ahead of Ayodhya hearing

    Following Justice Lalit's recusal, CJI Gogoi will set up a fresh five-judge bench to hear the case.

    10:58 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    SC adjourns case for January 29
    10:55 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Justice Lalit recuses from case

    According to reports, Justice U U Lalit withdrew from the case after advocate Rajeev Dhavan pointed out that he had appeared for Kalyan Singh in a criminal case related to the dispute.

    10:44 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Only schedule for hearing to be decided today: SC
    10:35 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    What is the 1994 judgment?

    In the 1994 order in the Dr M Ismail Faruqui etc vs Union Of India And Others case, the court had said a mosque is not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam, and hence “its acquisition (by the State) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”. The petitioners had contended that earlier decisions in the Ayodhya case were influenced by this statement and hence it should be re-examined by a Constitution bench.

    10:27 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Three-judge SC bench refuses to refer 1994 judgment to larger bench

    Earlier, on September 27, during a hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, had refused to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of its observations in a 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam. Dismissal of the plea to refer the matter to a larger bench had cleared the way for beginning of the final hearing of the appeals.

    10:21 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    SC rejects plea for urgent hearing on Ayodhya dispute

    On October 29 last year, the court had fixed the matter for hearing in the first week of January. An application for an urgent hearing by advancing the date, filed by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, had been turned down by the top court.

    10:17 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    SC to pass further orders today

    On January 4, the apex court, which will hear the pleas against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict, had said that further orders in the matter would be passed today by “the appropriate bench, as may be constituted”.

    10:11 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    Tight security outside SC ahead of Ayodhya hearing
    10:10 (IST)10 Jan 2019
    SC to begin hearing Ayodhya case today

    A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, will begin hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case at 10.30 am today. The bench will hear 14 petitions against the Allahabad High Court verdict of September 30, 2010, ordering a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site, giving a third each to the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Wakf Board, Uttar Pradesh, and Ramlalla Virajman. Follow our live blog for all latest updates.

    Earlier, on September 27, during a hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute case, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by 2:1 majority, had refused to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of its observations in a 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

    Dismissal of the plea to refer the matter to a larger bench had cleared the way for beginning of the final hearing of the appeals. In the 1994 order in the Dr M Ismail Faruqui etc vs Union Of India And Others case, the court had said a mosque not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam, and hence “its acquisition (by the State) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”. The petitioners had contended that earlier decisions in the Ayodhya case were influenced by this statement and hence it should be re-examined by a Constitution bench.

    0 Comment(s) *
    * The moderation of comments is automated and not cleared manually by indianexpress.com.