Next Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid Case Hearing on 8 February

mangaloretoday News Network

New Delhi, Dec 05, 2017: The Supreme Court began the final hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case on Tuesday, 5 December, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the medieval-era mosque – the Babri Masjid.

 

A specially constituted bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer are hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

The final hearing in the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute began in the Supreme Court from Tuesday, 5 December


A three-judge bench will be hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits


The High Court had then ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area among the parties – the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla

Next hearing date

The next hearing is scheduled for February 8, 2018. The registrar has been directed to keep track of the filing of documents.

CJI takes note of the discpute over filing of documents

CJI Dipak Misra took note of the dispute over the filing of documents. He also took stock of Dhawan’s arguments that the matter should be referred to a larger bench.

 

Suit ’needs to start somewhere’: SC

Justice Ashok Bhushan questioned Sibal, asking why the case should be delayed. Replying to the judge, Sibal said the case is being heard right now because of Subhramaniam Swamy’s intervention.

He added that Swamy has a political agenda behind getting the case decided before the 2019 elections, and that the court shouldn’t fall into his trap.

CS Vaidyanathan, who is appearing for Lord Ram Lalla, said politics shouldn’t be brought into the matter.

Advocate Harish Salve said the case should proceed as a land dispute, and if a Constitutional question that is serious arises – such as whether mosques are essential religious practice for Muslims – that specific question should be sent to a constitution bench.

However, Dhavan retaliated by saying that the issue of the nature of the mosque is fundamental to the case.

Responding to Dhavan, Sibal pointed out that the Babri Masjid case isn’t an ordinary suit. The SC agreed with Sibal but said that the suit “needs to start somewhere.”

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, argued that a larger bench with either five or seven judges should hear this case.

Saying that this case isn’t an ordinary one, Dhavan told the court that a larger, different bench is required, otherwise the case will be governed by a previous constitution bench, which held that mosques are not part of the essential religious practices of Muslims.

Arguing the importance of the case, Sibal also said that the matter should be taken up after the general elections of 2019.

Justice Ashok Bhushan questioned him, asking why the case should be delayed. Replying to the judge, Sibal said the case is being heard right now because of Subhramaniam Swamy’s intervention.

He added that Swamy has a political agenda behind getting the case decided before the 2019 elections, and that the court shouldn’t fall into his trap.

CS Vaidyanathan, who is appearing for Lord Ram Lalla, said politics shouldn’t be brought into the matter.

Advocate Harish Salve said the case should proceed as a land dispute, and if a Constitutional question that is serious arises – such as whether mosques are essential religious practice for Muslims – that specific question should be sent to a constitution bench. However, Dhavan retaliated by saying that the issue of the nature of the mosque is fundamental to the case.

The concerned parties are arguing about what documents have been filed.

While Kapil Sibal, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, claimed that even the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report hadn’t been filed, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, arguing for the Uttar Pradesh government, insisted that Sibal and others have been given everything they needed.

He told the court that all the related documents and requisite translation copies are on record. Senior advocate Satish Parasaran, representing one of the temple trusts, also said all documents are in order.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra asked one of the Hindu parties about their arguments, and why they were contesting the Allahabad High Court judgment. Sibal, however, intervened saying this can’t happen till they have a chance to read all the documents.

As the argument became heated, a furious Misra threw a lawyer out for calling someone in the middle of the courtroom.

Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer have arrived, and the proceedings have begun in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.

Out of the documents which needed to be translated, most have been done so, except for some witness statements.

Kapil Sibal gave updates on the filing of exhibits as evidence. It seems like a lot of exhibits still haven’t been filed.



courtesy: Yahoo