Ayodhya: Supreme court to hear Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid conflict

Adjust Comment Print

The Supreme Court is likely to resume hearing on a batch of cross petitions against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya Ram janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case on Thursday.

Today, the Supreme Court is going to hear the petitions on the Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Masjid conflict that has been prevalent since the demolition of the mosque in 1992.

Meanwhile, there are indications that some third parties have tried to explore possibilities of an out of court settlement.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, who comprise the three-judge bench in the case on which the political fortunes of the BJP are hinged, on Thursday said they would look at it as a "pure land dispute". Speaking on the issue, lawyer of Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha Vishnu Shankar Jain elaborated that both parties asked the court to hold day to day hearings.

It had rejected an attempt by the Sunni Waqf Board and members of the minority community to postpone hearing in the case till July 2019. You all are wrong. Dhavan said the respondents should not dictate what propositions he should argue on.

The trailer for Venom is here and it's incredible
Details on the plot have been scarce, and we don't know how the movie will exist inside its own universe. We don't even really know yet how exactly Venom fits into the larger cinematic universes at play.

To this, the bench intervened and said that "The same arguments can be made by them for you Dr. Dhavan".

The court also said it will hear at later stage the impleadment applications of those which were not before the Allahabad High Court. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Uttar Pradesh government, reacting to Mr. Dhavan's words, said, "Such hyperbole should be avoided".

Also, they demanded that the case be referred to a five-judge Constitution bench.

Earlier, senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan had appeared on behalf of some petitioners and had pressed for postponing of the hearing. While some of them begged that they did not have the records that were presented to the high court ahead of 2010, the Supreme Court directed the Registry to provide them copies on payment.

Senior advocate K Prasaran appearing for one of the Hindu bodies, "What kind of evidence will they (appellants) bring from 30,000 years ago. The incident relates to the Treta Yuga", Mr. Parasaran submitted.