The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered the mediation panel to submit a detailed status report on the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case by July 18.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi took the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-progress-made-in-ayodhya-case-plaintiff-tells-supreme-court-234343">plaintiff’s plea</a> into consideration.&nbsp;

The plaintiff had sought an early hearing of the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case.&nbsp;

Senior lawyer SK Parasaran, arguing for one of the applicants, told the top court that mediation talks were not making much progress and were unable to bring any positive results. However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing Muslim parties, said that this was not the time to criticise the mediation panel.&nbsp;

He said, “I don’t think it’s fair to criticise mediation panel’s proceedings. Parties cannot come to court asking to scrap the mediation talks on our account”.

However, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute, the court will then commence hearing the case on a day-to-day basis from July 25.&nbsp;

In order to resolve the title dispute case, the top Court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu.&nbsp;

While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered the mediation panel to submit a detailed status report on the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case by July 18.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered the mediation panel to submit a detailed status report on the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case by July 18. The Supreme Court bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi took the plaintiff’s plea into consideration. The plaintiff had sought an early hearing of the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute case. Senior lawyer SK Parasaran, arguing for one of the applicants, told the top court that mediation talks were not making much progress and were unable to bring any positive results. However, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan, representing Muslim parties, said that this was not the time to criticise the mediation panel. He said, “I don’t think it’s fair to criticise mediation panel’s proceedings. Parties cannot come to court asking to scrap the mediation talks on our account”. However, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid title dispute, the court will then commence hearing the case on a day-to-day basis from July 25. In order to resolve the title dispute case, the top Court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu. While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.

Ayodhya land dispute case: Supreme Court directs mediation panel to submit detailed status report by July 18

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday began hearing a plea for early hearing on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/no-progress-made-in-ayodhya-case-plaintiff-tells-supreme-court-234343">Ayodhya land dispute case</a>.

This comes after the apex court, earlier this week, on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case.&nbsp;

Plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application.

The court had appointed a mediation panel previously to resolve the dispute. The mediation panel is led by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday began hearing a plea for early hearing on Ayodhya land dispute case. This comes after the apex court, earlier this week, on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case.

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday began hearing a plea for early hearing on Ayodhya land dispute case. This comes after the apex court, earlier this week, on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. Plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application. The court had appointed a mediation panel previously to resolve the dispute. The mediation panel is led by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu.

Supreme Courts hears plea that calls for early hearing on Ayodhya land dispute case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. The plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case.

A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application.

In order to resolve the title dispute case, the court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu. While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings.

The court had earlier granted more time to the mediation committee to reach an amicable solution in the case. The court extended the deadline till August 15 for the mediation panel to help solve the dispute at Ayodhya.

The mediation is taking place at Faizabad, close to Ayodhya.

The court had said the mediators will be at liberty to co-opt other members of the panel if needed and seek further legal assistance as and when required. The mediation process must be completed in eight weeks, it further said.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. The plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed a plaintiff to file an application seeking an early hearing in the Ram Mandir-Babri mosque title dispute case. The plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad moved India's top court claiming that not much progress has been made in the court-ordered mediation process in the case. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi agreed to consider the matter and allowed the plaintiff to file an application. In order to resolve the title dispute case, the court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah along with spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate Sri Ram Panchu. While forming the panel, the court had asked the mediation panel to maintain utmost confidentiality and disallowed media from reporting the panel proceedings. The court had earlier granted more time to the mediation committee to reach an amicable solution in the case. The court extended the deadline till August 15 for the mediation panel to help solve the dispute at Ayodhya. The mediation is taking place at Faizabad, close to Ayodhya. The court had said the mediators will be at liberty to co-opt other members of the panel if needed and seek further legal assistance as and when required. The mediation process must be completed in eight weeks, it further said.

No progress made in Ayodhya case, plaintiff tells Supreme Court

After six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will reopen on Monday and will hear many important and sensitive cases including Congress president Rahul Gandhi contempt case, Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute and Rafale review petitions among others.

The court was closed for the annual summer vacation from May 13 to June 30.

The apex court will work, after a full sanctioned strength of 31 judges -- after a long time -- with the recent appointment of two judges including Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant.

The court will also pronounce the judgement on a slew of review petitions pending before it.

It had reserved its verdict after hearing from former ministers, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Prashant Bhushan, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh.

They wanted a direction to review the court's last year verdict, which had rejected their petitions for directing a probe into the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France.

The top court will also pronounce the order on review petitions filed in the entry of women of all ages into the popular Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

The Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute matter, the most sensitive and important case, would also be heard, as the court, in its last hearing, had granted more time and asked the panel of mediators to amicably resolve the case through dialogues by August 15.

Although Gandhi had tendered his unconditional apology for his alleged jibe on "chowkidar chor hai" remark, the Supreme Court will hear the case and see whether the prosecution should be initiated or not against him.

A five-judge Constitution Bench will also deliver its judgement in a case whether the Chief Justice of India's office is covered under the purview of the transparency law, Right to Information Act (RTI).

The top court will also begin hearing of pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, which seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

A roster which was issued, on June 2, by the top court will be implemented from Monday.

As per the new latest roster system, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) matters will now be heard by the benches headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and Rohinton Fali Nariman.

The four Justices will hear the PILs assigned to them by the CJI.

The election matters, which were vested earlier exclusively with the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, will now be shared with the bench headed by Justice Bobde.

According to the roster, Justices MM Shantanagoudar and S Abdul Nazeer will now head benches at the apex court.&nbsp;

After six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will reopen on Monday and will hear many important and sensitive cases including Congress president Rahul Gandhi contempt case, Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute and Rafale review petitions among others.

After six-week summer vacation, the Supreme Court will reopen on Monday and will hear many important and sensitive cases including Congress president Rahul Gandhi contempt case, Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute and Rafale review petitions among others. The court was closed for the annual summer vacation from May 13 to June 30. The apex court will work, after a full sanctioned strength of 31 judges -- after a long time -- with the recent appointment of two judges including Justices B R Gavai and Surya Kant. The court will also pronounce the judgement on a slew of review petitions pending before it. It had reserved its verdict after hearing from former ministers, Arun Shourie, Yashwant Sinha, Prashant Bhushan, AAP Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Singh. They wanted a direction to review the court's last year verdict, which had rejected their petitions for directing a probe into the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter jets from France. The top court will also pronounce the order on review petitions filed in the entry of women of all ages into the popular Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The Ayodhya Babri Masjid land dispute matter, the most sensitive and important case, would also be heard, as the court, in its last hearing, had granted more time and asked the panel of mediators to amicably resolve the case through dialogues by August 15. Although Gandhi had tendered his unconditional apology for his alleged jibe on "chowkidar chor hai" remark, the Supreme Court will hear the case and see whether the prosecution should be initiated or not against him. A five-judge Constitution Bench will also deliver its judgement in a case whether the Chief Justice of India's office is covered under the purview of the transparency law, Right to Information Act (RTI). The top court will also begin hearing of pleas challenging the Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2016, which seeks to provide Indian citizenship to non-Muslims from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. A roster which was issued, on June 2, by the top court will be implemented from Monday. As per the new latest roster system, the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) matters will now be heard by the benches headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, Arun Mishra and Rohinton Fali Nariman. The four Justices will hear the PILs assigned to them by the CJI. The election matters, which were vested earlier exclusively with the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, will now be shared with the bench headed by Justice Bobde. According to the roster, Justices MM Shantanagoudar and S Abdul Nazeer will now head benches at the apex court.

Supreme Court to reopen today after six-week vacation, will hear key cases including Rafale, Ayodhya

The government should bring an ordinance to construct Ram temple, Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray said on Sunday in Ayodhya, asserting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the courage to do so and there would be no one to stop it.

Thackeray offered prayers at the makeshift Ram Lalla temple along with his son Aditya and 18 newly-elected lawmakers of his party. The Shiv Sena has said the visit was to fulfil the promise Thackeray made last November to come to Ayodhya again after the elections.

"The case is in court for many years. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has courage. If the government takes the decision, there is no one to stop it. Not only Shiv Sena but Hindus of the whole world are also with this," Uddhav said while addressing a press conference after his visit to the Ram Lalla (or infant Ram) temple.

"The government should bring an ordinance for construction of Ram temple. The issue concerns all Hindus and the temple has to be constructed at the earliest," he said, raising the slogan of "Kanoon banao, mandir banao (formulate law and construct temple)".

Maharashtra will be going to polls later this year and the visit is being seen as an attempt by the Shive Sena to put pressure on ally BJP on the Ram temple issue. But Sena has maintained that Thackeray's visit should not be seen through the electoral lens.

"For us, Ram temple is a matter of faith and not politics," Thackeray said.

The title suit over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site is being heard by the Supreme Court.

The government should bring an ordinance to construct Ram temple, Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray said on Sunday in Ayodhya, asserting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the courage to do so and there would be no one to stop it.

The government should bring an ordinance to construct Ram temple, Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray said on Sunday in Ayodhya, asserting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi has the courage to do so and there would be no one to stop it. Thackeray offered prayers at the makeshift Ram Lalla temple along with his son Aditya and 18 newly-elected lawmakers of his party. The Shiv Sena has said the visit was to fulfil the promise Thackeray made last November to come to Ayodhya again after the elections. "The case is in court for many years. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has courage. If the government takes the decision, there is no one to stop it. Not only Shiv Sena but Hindus of the whole world are also with this," Uddhav said while addressing a press conference after his visit to the Ram Lalla (or infant Ram) temple. "The government should bring an ordinance for construction of Ram temple. The issue concerns all Hindus and the temple has to be constructed at the earliest," he said, raising the slogan of "Kanoon banao, mandir banao (formulate law and construct temple)". Maharashtra will be going to polls later this year and the visit is being seen as an attempt by the Shive Sena to put pressure on ally BJP on the Ram temple issue. But Sena has maintained that Thackeray's visit should not be seen through the electoral lens. "For us, Ram temple is a matter of faith and not politics," Thackeray said. The title suit over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site is being heard by the Supreme Court.

PM Narendra Modi has courage, should bring ordinance to construct Ram temple: Uddhav Thackeray in Ayodhya 

The Supreme Court of India is scheduled today to hear issues relating to decades-old Ayodhya’s Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

India's top court to hear Ayodhya dispute today

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday the issues relating to the Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

A notice in this regard was put up on the apex court website which said that the matter will be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

The matter will come for the first time on Friday since March 8 order by which the top court had referred the decades-old politically sensitive case for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-orders-mediation-in-ayodhya-case-appoints-three-member-panel-201901">mediation by a panel</a> headed by former apex court judge FM I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement.

Spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, are the other two members of the panel of mediators.

The panel was asked by the apex court to hold in-camera proceedings and complete it within eight weeks.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday the issues relating to the Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. A notice in this regard was put up on the apex court website which said that the matter will be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Friday the issues relating to the Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. A notice in this regard was put up on the apex court website which said that the matter will be heard by a five-judge Constitution bench comprising Chief justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. The matter will come for the first time on Friday since March 8 order by which the top court had referred the decades-old politically sensitive case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge FM I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement. Spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, are the other two members of the panel of mediators. The panel was asked by the apex court to hold in-camera proceedings and complete it within eight weeks.

Supreme Court to hear Ayodhya land dispute case on Friday

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, has requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place” due to the sensitive nature of the issue.

It has also said that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara.

Besides, it has further requested that two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel which is exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement of the land dispute.&nbsp;

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on March 8 referred the land dispute case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F M I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement.

The bench had said that spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, will be the other two members of the panel of mediators and the proceedings will be held at Faizabad.

In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, has requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place” due to the sensitive nature of the issue.

Nirmohi Akhara, one of the original litigants in the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, has requested the Supreme Court to consider moving the mediation panel proceedings from Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh to New Delhi or some other “neutral place” due to the sensitive nature of the issue. It has also said that an amicable resolution would be possible only through “direct dialogue” between the UP Sunni Wakf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. Besides, it has further requested that two more retired judges of the apex court be appointed to the mediation panel which is exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement of the land dispute. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had on March 8 referred the land dispute case for mediation by a panel headed by former apex court judge F M I Kalifulla for exploring the possibility of an amicable settlement. The bench had said that spiritual guru and founder of Art of Living Foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu, a renowned mediator, will be the other two members of the panel of mediators and the proceedings will be held at Faizabad. In its application dated March 25, 2019, Nirmohi Akhara has said that the original parties claiming the title — The Panch Ramanandi Nirmohi Akhara Ayodhya and The UP Sunni Central Waqf Board — can be encouraged to have a dialogue under the aegis of the panel of mediators without requiring them to give proposals in writing.

Ayodhya case: Nirmohi Akhara requests SC to move mediation proceedings to ‘neutral place’

Supreme Court orders mediation in Ayodhya case

Ayodhya Case: Supreme Court orders mediation

The Supreme Court on Friday appointed three mediators to help resolve the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-cant-undo-past-can-only-look-into-present-says-supreme-court-201473">Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid</a> land dispute case.

Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench referred the case for court appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”.

India's highest court said <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/ayodhya-dispute-laying-a-strong-foundation-190167">mediation should be</a> conducted "in-camera". The court said&nbsp;the mediation report should be submitted in four&nbsp;weeks. The process will start in a week.

The court also directed the mediation proceedings to be completed within eight weeks.&nbsp;Supreme Court said "utmost confidentiality" should be maintained to ensure success of mediation proceedings.&nbsp;

The mediation proceedings will be held in Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh.

On Wednesday, the apex court comprising of Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, had told the parties, “We're seriously giving a chance for mediation."

Former Supreme Court judge&nbsp;FM Khaliifulah will be the chairman&nbsp;for the court-appointed mediation panel.&nbsp;Other members of panel of mediators include Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and Sriram Panchu.

Supreme Court has restrained the media from reporting proceedings of mediation in the Ayodhya case.

Supreme Court directed the panel of mediators to co-opt more members and in case of any difficulty to inform the apex court registry.&nbsp;

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

On February 26, the bench had said, “We have suggested to the parties that during the interregnum a court-appointed and court-monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases.”

The Supreme Court on Friday appointed three mediators to help resolve the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench referred the case for court appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”.

The Supreme Court on Friday appointed three mediators to help resolve the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench referred the case for court appointed and monitored mediation for a “permanent solution”. India's highest court said mediation should be conducted "in-camera". The court said the mediation report should be submitted in four weeks. The process will start in a week. The court also directed the mediation proceedings to be completed within eight weeks. Supreme Court said "utmost confidentiality" should be maintained to ensure success of mediation proceedings. The mediation proceedings will be held in Faizabad in Uttar Pradesh. On Wednesday, the apex court comprising of Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, had told the parties, “We're seriously giving a chance for mediation." Former Supreme Court judge FM Khaliifulah will be the chairman for the court-appointed mediation panel. Other members of panel of mediators include Shri Shri Ravi Shankar and Sriram Panchu. Supreme Court has restrained the media from reporting proceedings of mediation in the Ayodhya case. Supreme Court directed the panel of mediators to co-opt more members and in case of any difficulty to inform the apex court registry. Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. On February 26, the bench had said, “We have suggested to the parties that during the interregnum a court-appointed and court-monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases.”

Supreme Court orders mediation in Ayodhya case; appoints three-member panel

3 Mediators including Sri Sri Ravi Shankar In Ayodhya Case, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard&nbsp;arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-a-timeline-188184">Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute</a> in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/25-years-since-babri-masjid-demolition-security-hiked-in-ayodhya-7188?first_load=no">Ayodhya</a> can be settled through mediation.&nbsp;

A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the case was not only about the property but also about sentiment and faith.

"It is not only about the property. It is about mind, heart and healing, if possible," the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer said.

"We are not concerned about what Mughal ruler Babur had done and what happened after. We can go into what exists in the present moment," the bench said.

The apex court is considering whether the dispute can be settled through mediation.

Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.”

When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench.&nbsp;

The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator. 
 
(With inputs from PTI)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the case was not only about the property but also about sentiment and faith. "It is not only about the property. It is about mind, heart and healing, if possible," the bench also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer said. "We are not concerned about what Mughal ruler Babur had done and what happened after. We can go into what exists in the present moment," the bench said. The apex court is considering whether the dispute can be settled through mediation. Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.” When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench. The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator. (With inputs from PTI)

Ayodhya land dispute case: Not concerned about what Babur did, need to go into what exists at present, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today is<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/opinion-what-decides-babri-masjids-fate-on-march-14-33360"> hearing arguments f</a>rom all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799">Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute</a> in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation.&nbsp;

“We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute," said Justice SA Bobde during the hearing.

Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.”

When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench.&nbsp;

A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked the contesting parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades-old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in "healing relations".

The other judges of the bench are Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator.

The Supreme Court today is hearing arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation.

The Supreme Court today is hearing arguments from all the parties concerned to decide whether the crucial Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya can be settled through mediation. “We have no control over what happened in the past, who invaded, who was the king, temple or mosque. We know about the present dispute. We are concerned only about resolving the dispute," said Justice SA Bobde during the hearing. Justice SA Bobde proposed a restrained media reportage of the case proceedings, added, “When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on.” When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag, but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process is on," said the Constitution bench. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had asked the contesting parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades-old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in "healing relations". The other judges of the bench are Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer. The top court on February 26 had said it would pass an order on March 6 on whether to refer the matter to a court-appointed mediator.

Ayodhya land dispute case: Can't undo past, can only look into present, says Supreme Court

Nearly 11,500 documents in Ayodhya land dispute matter need to be translated in English from 16 languages for the case to be ready for hearing — a task that would take around 120 days and involve eight official translators, the Supreme Court was informed Tuesday.

The 16 different languages from which the documents are to be translated include Hindi, Punjabi (Gurumukhi), Urdu, Persian and Arabic.

The top court’s Secretary General said in the eight-page report that the record consists of 38,147 pages out of which 12,814 are in Hindi, 18,607 in English, 501 in Urdu, 97 in Gurumukhi, 21 in Sanskrit, 86 in other language scripts, 14 images, 1,729 are combination of more than one script and 4,278 blank pages.

The report was submitted in pursuance to the apex court’s earlier direction after which the Secretary-General had constituted two committees for visiting the room where the records were kept.

The court had earlier directed the registry to physically inspect the records which are lying under lock and key and make an assessment of the time that will be taken to make the cases ready for hearing by engaging, if required, official translators of the requisite number and give a report thereof to the court.

It said there were 15 locked trunks in which the records, including that of the Allahabad High Court, were kept.

The report stated that the high court judgement ran into 8,170 pages and the deposition, 14,385 pages.

Regarding the time to be taken for translating 11,479 pages in English from different languages, it said as per the prescribed standard, a senior and a junior translator is required to translate 1,600 and 1,300 words per day respectively, which comes out to be 6-7 pages per day approx.

However, in view of the importance of the matter, if the translators are asked to put in more working hours every day, each translator may translate about 12 pages per day.

“In the circumstances, if entire strength of eight official translators (of the Supreme Court) is utilised to translate 11,479 (10,907 + 572) pages, it is likely to take about 120 working days to make the case ready for hearing,” the report said.

It said the time may be reduced if the Supreme Court permits the registry to engage services of translators from various high courts and government departments.

It said it 16 translators (eight official translators of the apex court and eight engaged from other sources) are deputed, the translation will be completed in about 60 working days and it may be reduced by engaging more translators.

A 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing the politically sensitive Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land case in Ayodhya on Tuesday.

It asked the contending parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades' old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in “healing relations”. The bench, which posted the main matter for hearing after eight weeks and directed its registry to provide translated copies of documents to the parties within six weeks to check their veracity, said it wanted to explore the possibility of mediation to utilise the time till the next date of hearing.&nbsp;

Nearly 11,500 documents in Ayodhya land dispute matter need to be translated in English from 16 languages for the case to be ready for hearing — a task that would take around 120 days and involve eight official translators, the Supreme Court was informed Tuesday.

Nearly 11,500 documents in Ayodhya land dispute matter need to be translated in English from 16 languages for the case to be ready for hearing — a task that would take around 120 days and involve eight official translators, the Supreme Court was informed Tuesday. The 16 different languages from which the documents are to be translated include Hindi, Punjabi (Gurumukhi), Urdu, Persian and Arabic. The top court’s Secretary General said in the eight-page report that the record consists of 38,147 pages out of which 12,814 are in Hindi, 18,607 in English, 501 in Urdu, 97 in Gurumukhi, 21 in Sanskrit, 86 in other language scripts, 14 images, 1,729 are combination of more than one script and 4,278 blank pages. The report was submitted in pursuance to the apex court’s earlier direction after which the Secretary-General had constituted two committees for visiting the room where the records were kept. The court had earlier directed the registry to physically inspect the records which are lying under lock and key and make an assessment of the time that will be taken to make the cases ready for hearing by engaging, if required, official translators of the requisite number and give a report thereof to the court. It said there were 15 locked trunks in which the records, including that of the Allahabad High Court, were kept. The report stated that the high court judgement ran into 8,170 pages and the deposition, 14,385 pages. Regarding the time to be taken for translating 11,479 pages in English from different languages, it said as per the prescribed standard, a senior and a junior translator is required to translate 1,600 and 1,300 words per day respectively, which comes out to be 6-7 pages per day approx. However, in view of the importance of the matter, if the translators are asked to put in more working hours every day, each translator may translate about 12 pages per day. “In the circumstances, if entire strength of eight official translators (of the Supreme Court) is utilised to translate 11,479 (10,907 + 572) pages, it is likely to take about 120 working days to make the case ready for hearing,” the report said. It said the time may be reduced if the Supreme Court permits the registry to engage services of translators from various high courts and government departments. It said it 16 translators (eight official translators of the apex court and eight engaged from other sources) are deputed, the translation will be completed in about 60 working days and it may be reduced by engaging more translators. A 5-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi was hearing the politically sensitive Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land case in Ayodhya on Tuesday. It asked the contending parties to explore the possibility of amicably settling the decades' old dispute through mediation, saying it may help in “healing relations”. The bench, which posted the main matter for hearing after eight weeks and directed its registry to provide translated copies of documents to the parties within six weeks to check their veracity, said it wanted to explore the possibility of mediation to utilise the time till the next date of hearing.

Ayodhya case: 8 translators to take 120 days to translate nearly 11,500 pages in English, SC told

The Supreme Court Wednesday decided to hear on February 26 the politically sensitive <a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/ayodhya-dispute-laying-a-strong-foundation-190167">Ayodhya</a>'s Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land dispute matter.

It will be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The apex court on January 27 had cancelled the scheduled hearing for January 29 as Justice S A Bobde, one of the five judges of the Constitution Bench, was not available that day.

Besides CJI and Justice Bobde, members of the bench are Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

The bench will hear the appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya is partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court Wednesday decided to hear on February 26 the politically sensitive Ayodhya's Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land dispute matter. It will be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.

The Supreme Court Wednesday decided to hear on February 26 the politically sensitive Ayodhya's Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land dispute matter. It will be heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. The apex court on January 27 had cancelled the scheduled hearing for January 29 as Justice S A Bobde, one of the five judges of the Constitution Bench, was not available that day. Besides CJI and Justice Bobde, members of the bench are Justices D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer. The bench will hear the appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya is partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya case: Supreme Court to hear on February 26 Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter

Ayodhya dispute: Centre seeks to return non-disputed land to owners

The hearing in the Ayodhya case has been deferred again for an unspecified date.

News agency ANI reported on Sunday that the case will not be heard on January 29 due to the non-availability of one of the judges from the five-judge constitution bench.

"Ayodhya case won't be taken up for hearing by the 5-judge constitution bench of Supreme Court on January 29 due to the non-availability of Justice SA Bobde, " ANI reported.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ayodhya case won't be taken up for hearing by the 5-judge constitution bench of Supreme Court on January 29 due to the non-availability of Justice SA Bobde <a href="https://t.co/wzuJsBjwSJ">pic.twitter.com/wzuJsBjwSJ</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1089487190449623041?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Hearing of the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya was adjourned earlier after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-hearing-adjourned-after-judge-recuses-himself-from-hearing-189321">Justice UU Lalit recused himself</a> from the case.&nbsp;

Lalit had recused himself from the case after a senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party had told the bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994.

The court had then directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Yog Guru Ramdev: Either Supreme Court or government should do something for the construction (of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RamTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RamTemple</a>). There aren't many possibilities of a quick judgement by the court, so I think that the government should take an initiative <a href="https://t.co/4Tlg8Z3aT4">pic.twitter.com/4Tlg8Z3aT4</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1089483412010926081?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 27, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The hearing in the Ayodhya case has been deferred again for an unspecified date. News agency ANI reported on Sunday that the case will not be heard on January 29 due to the non-availability of one of the judges from the five-judge constitution bench.

The hearing in the Ayodhya case has been deferred again for an unspecified date. News agency ANI reported on Sunday that the case will not be heard on January 29 due to the non-availability of one of the judges from the five-judge constitution bench. "Ayodhya case won't be taken up for hearing by the 5-judge constitution bench of Supreme Court on January 29 due to the non-availability of Justice SA Bobde, " ANI reported. Ayodhya case won't be taken up for hearing by the 5-judge constitution bench of Supreme Court on January 29 due to the non-availability of Justice SA Bobde pic.twitter.com/wzuJsBjwSJ — ANI (@ANI) January 27, 2019 × Hearing of the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya was adjourned earlier after Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the case. Lalit had recused himself from the case after a senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party had told the bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994. The court had then directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages. Yog Guru Ramdev: Either Supreme Court or government should do something for the construction (of #RamTemple). There aren't many possibilities of a quick judgement by the court, so I think that the government should take an initiative pic.twitter.com/4Tlg8Z3aT4 — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) January 27, 2019 ×

Ayodhya case deferred again, will not be heard on January 29

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/new-supreme-court-bench-to-hear-ayodhya-title-suit-on-january-10-188180">reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench</a> including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer.&nbsp;

The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case. Justice Lalit's recusal occurred after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994.

Although Dhawan hadn't demanded Justice Lalit's recusal but he told Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench to step out of the bench.

The five-judge bench will now constitute of CJI Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer.&nbsp;The court will hear the case on January 29th.

The court had directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages.&nbsp;

The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years.&nbsp;

The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board.&nbsp;

The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.&nbsp;

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case.

Chief Justice of India(CJI) Ranjan Gogoi today reconstituted the Ayodhya dispute bench including Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The hearing of the case was adjourned on January 10th Justice UU Lalit had recused himself from the case. Justice Lalit's recusal occurred after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench that Justice Lalit had appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994. Although Dhawan hadn't demanded Justice Lalit's recusal but he told Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench to step out of the bench. The five-judge bench will now constitute of CJI Gogoi, Justice SA Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer. The court will hear the case on January 29th. The court had directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages. The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years. The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board. The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.

CJI Gogoi reconstitutes Ayodhya bench; two judges added

With the Supreme Court constituting a five-member bench under the Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi, it is expected that a decision on the Ram Janmabhoomi temple construction is very much in sight. The NDA government has already requested the apex court for a day-to-day hearing of the pending appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgement, on a three-way split of the disputed land.

In recent months, the temple movement has stepped up pressure on the central government for an early solution. This is bound to create ripples on the political front as the 2019 Lok Sabha polls are round the corner.

The Centre enacting the 10 per cent reservation for the economically backward sections of society has consolidated the BJP base among the segments so far deprived of the benefit of reservation. This is bound to have an impact on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement also since it has taken care of the grievance of a large chunk of the BJP support base who are at the forefront of the Ayodhya agitation. &nbsp;

After over a quarter of a century of the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya’s holy site, a historic and dramatic resolution looks possible if the stakeholders agree to a suggestion mooted by the Shia Waqf Board, the real title-holder of the premise, to relocate the mosque to a nearby Muslim area which would facilitate the building of a magnificent Ram Temple. This was announced in August 2017, by the Shia Waqf Board. The apex court may take cognisance of this.

The Hindus welcomed the offer in the court. But a section of Muslims under the hardline Sunni Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee has reacted adversely.

The offer of the Muslim community, even if it is coming from only a faction, is the result of the inclusive policy of the Narendra Modi government. Muslims feel safe enough and part of the mainstream for the first time since Independence. This is also the first time since the dispute went to court that the title-holder party or, for that matter, anybody from the Muslim community, has proposed a shifting of the mosque from the disputed land. This in itself is ground-breaking, thus opening a new chapter in Hindu-Muslim relations. This can become the starting point for a negotiated settlement.

The Shia offer has three major aspects: First, technically, only the Shia community has a legal right on the property. The demolished Babri Masjid, though there was no namaz held there for many decades, was a Shia shrine, historically built on a temple that existed till the 14th Century. Second, this is the first time any Muslim individual or outfit is making an offer to relocate the mosque. Third, the starting point for any dialogue has to be the admission of the Hindu claim that the site in discussion is the Ram Janmabhoomi and sacred to Hindus. No solution can come unless these basic premises are brought on the table.

There is yet another important aspect to the Shia Waqf Board suggestion. It has identified, and without mincing words declared, that the hardline sections in the Babri Action Committee are not interested in an amicable solution and are trying to vitiate the social fabric. “It is under the dominant control of hardliners, fanatics and non-believers in peaceful co-existence, who have absolutely no stakes in the case”, it said. Though the Sunni Waqf Board has also petitioned the Supreme Court as a party in the dispute, they have no locus standi as far as the title deed is concerned. The Allahabad HC in its 2011 judgement declared as such. The Allahabad HC had suggested a three-way division of the site with one portion going to the Shia Waqf Board, while accepting the historic Hindu belief that the place in question is Ram Janmabhoomi. The two other parts were given to the Hindu organisation.

The appeal against the high court verdict has been pending in the Supreme Court ever since. In early 2017, responding to a review petition by Dr Subramanian Swamy, the apex court had asked the involved parties to find a solution through mutual consent. Ever since both Hindu and Muslim leaders have been constantly exchanging notes with Swamy and VHP leader Champat Rai taking the initiative.

At least 200 rounds of negotiations have taken place between the two sides since the issue became hot in the late 80s. A very serious attempt at negotiated settlement was held when Chandrashekhar was Prime Minister in the early 90s. Then historians, archaeologists and scholars from both sides involved themselves in quoting chapter and verse to prove their side. Dr BB Lal, Dr SP Gupta, Dr BR Grover, and many such luminaries then played a role in verifying the historicity of the Hindu claim. Historians like Dr Irfan Habib argued for the other side. In the end, archaeology, history and faith proved the Hindu claim to be much stronger. But the Babri Committee was unrelenting.

What the Shia Board has now done in August 2017 was to call the bluff of this Committee. Mahant Nritya Gopal Das of the Janmabhoomi Nyas had expressed guarded satisfaction over the Shia Board proposal. Subramanian Swamy and the VHP are more exuberant with the development. The Shia Board had suggested a two-judge committee with members of the opposing sides and experts work on the nitty-gritty of the negotiated settlement. Now that the apex court has taken up a fast track process this will help.

With the BJP in power in Uttar Pradesh and at the Centre, the hope of paving the way for the grand temple in Ayodhya is on the ascent. It may not be possible to satisfy all the segments and spectrum of opinion at any stage. The moot point is will the apex court settle it before 2019 polls?

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-laying-a-strong-foundation-2707231">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the Supreme Court constituting a five-member bench under the Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi, it is expected that a decision on the Ram Janmabhoomi temple construction is very much in sight.

With the Supreme Court constituting a five-member bench under the Chief Justice of India Justice Ranjan Gogoi, it is expected that a decision on the Ram Janmabhoomi temple construction is very much in sight. The NDA government has already requested the apex court for a day-to-day hearing of the pending appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgement, on a three-way split of the disputed land. In recent months, the temple movement has stepped up pressure on the central government for an early solution. This is bound to create ripples on the political front as the 2019 Lok Sabha polls are round the corner. The Centre enacting the 10 per cent reservation for the economically backward sections of society has consolidated the BJP base among the segments so far deprived of the benefit of reservation. This is bound to have an impact on the Ram Janmabhoomi movement also since it has taken care of the grievance of a large chunk of the BJP support base who are at the forefront of the Ayodhya agitation. After over a quarter of a century of the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya’s holy site, a historic and dramatic resolution looks possible if the stakeholders agree to a suggestion mooted by the Shia Waqf Board, the real title-holder of the premise, to relocate the mosque to a nearby Muslim area which would facilitate the building of a magnificent Ram Temple. This was announced in August 2017, by the Shia Waqf Board. The apex court may take cognisance of this. The Hindus welcomed the offer in the court. But a section of Muslims under the hardline Sunni Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee has reacted adversely. The offer of the Muslim community, even if it is coming from only a faction, is the result of the inclusive policy of the Narendra Modi government. Muslims feel safe enough and part of the mainstream for the first time since Independence. This is also the first time since the dispute went to court that the title-holder party or, for that matter, anybody from the Muslim community, has proposed a shifting of the mosque from the disputed land. This in itself is ground-breaking, thus opening a new chapter in Hindu-Muslim relations. This can become the starting point for a negotiated settlement. The Shia offer has three major aspects: First, technically, only the Shia community has a legal right on the property. The demolished Babri Masjid, though there was no namaz held there for many decades, was a Shia shrine, historically built on a temple that existed till the 14th Century. Second, this is the first time any Muslim individual or outfit is making an offer to relocate the mosque. Third, the starting point for any dialogue has to be the admission of the Hindu claim that the site in discussion is the Ram Janmabhoomi and sacred to Hindus. No solution can come unless these basic premises are brought on the table. There is yet another important aspect to the Shia Waqf Board suggestion. It has identified, and without mincing words declared, that the hardline sections in the Babri Action Committee are not interested in an amicable solution and are trying to vitiate the social fabric. “It is under the dominant control of hardliners, fanatics and non-believers in peaceful co-existence, who have absolutely no stakes in the case”, it said. Though the Sunni Waqf Board has also petitioned the Supreme Court as a party in the dispute, they have no locus standi as far as the title deed is concerned. The Allahabad HC in its 2011 judgement declared as such. The Allahabad HC had suggested a three-way division of the site with one portion going to the Shia Waqf Board, while accepting the historic Hindu belief that the place in question is Ram Janmabhoomi. The two other parts were given to the Hindu organisation. The appeal against the high court verdict has been pending in the Supreme Court ever since. In early 2017, responding to a review petition by Dr Subramanian Swamy, the apex court had asked the involved parties to find a solution through mutual consent. Ever since both Hindu and Muslim leaders have been constantly exchanging notes with Swamy and VHP leader Champat Rai taking the initiative. At least 200 rounds of negotiations have taken place between the two sides since the issue became hot in the late 80s. A very serious attempt at negotiated settlement was held when Chandrashekhar was Prime Minister in the early 90s. Then historians, archaeologists and scholars from both sides involved themselves in quoting chapter and verse to prove their side. Dr BB Lal, Dr SP Gupta, Dr BR Grover, and many such luminaries then played a role in verifying the historicity of the Hindu claim. Historians like Dr Irfan Habib argued for the other side. In the end, archaeology, history and faith proved the Hindu claim to be much stronger. But the Babri Committee was unrelenting. What the Shia Board has now done in August 2017 was to call the bluff of this Committee. Mahant Nritya Gopal Das of the Janmabhoomi Nyas had expressed guarded satisfaction over the Shia Board proposal. Subramanian Swamy and the VHP are more exuberant with the development. The Shia Board had suggested a two-judge committee with members of the opposing sides and experts work on the nitty-gritty of the negotiated settlement. Now that the apex court has taken up a fast track process this will help. With the BJP in power in Uttar Pradesh and at the Centre, the hope of paving the way for the grand temple in Ayodhya is on the ascent. It may not be possible to satisfy all the segments and spectrum of opinion at any stage. The moot point is will the apex court settle it before 2019 polls? (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Ayodhya dispute: Laying a strong foundation

Ayodhya case hearing Adjourned till January 29

Hearing of the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya was adjourned on Thursday after Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the case.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will constitute a fresh five-judge bench to hear the case.&nbsp;

No sooner than the bench assembled, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi that Justice Lalit appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994.

Singh is currently the Rajasthan Governor.

Though Dhavan said he was not seeking recusal of Justice Lalit, Justice Lalit conveyed to Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench -- Justice SA&nbsp;Bobde, Justice NV&nbsp;Ramana, Justice DY&nbsp;Chandrchud -- of his reluctance to continue on the bench and recused himself.&nbsp;

Chief Justice Gogoi in his order said that under the Supreme Court rules in exercise of his administrative powers, it was his prerogative to decide the strength of the bench.

He said this while declining the submission by Dhawan that an earlier bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had said that a hearing on the batch of petitions will be heard by a three-judge bench.

The court thereafter directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages.&nbsp;

However, when senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for one of the Hindu litigants, offered to assist the registry in the handling of the papers and their translations, Chief Justice Gogoi said that he will rely entirely on his own registry to do the job.&nbsp;

Having directed the secretary general of the Supreme Court to submit the report in 15 days the court directed that the reconstituted bench will hold the hearing on January 29.&nbsp;

The apex court has now finalised January 29 as the next date of hearing.&nbsp;

Hearing of the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya was adjourned on Thursday after Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the case.

Hearing of the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya was adjourned on Thursday after Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the case. Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will constitute a fresh five-judge bench to hear the case. No sooner than the bench assembled, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi that Justice Lalit appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994. Singh is currently the Rajasthan Governor. Though Dhavan said he was not seeking recusal of Justice Lalit, Justice Lalit conveyed to Chief Justice Gogoi and other members of the bench -- Justice SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice DY Chandrchud -- of his reluctance to continue on the bench and recused himself. Chief Justice Gogoi in his order said that under the Supreme Court rules in exercise of his administrative powers, it was his prerogative to decide the strength of the bench. He said this while declining the submission by Dhawan that an earlier bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had said that a hearing on the batch of petitions will be heard by a three-judge bench. The court thereafter directed its registry to go through all the records relating to the Ayodhya case which are available with it and submit a report by January 29 as to how much time it would require for translating the documents and the case material which are in Persian, Arabic, Urdu and Gurmukhi languages. However, when senior counsel Harish Salve, appearing for one of the Hindu litigants, offered to assist the registry in the handling of the papers and their translations, Chief Justice Gogoi said that he will rely entirely on his own registry to do the job. Having directed the secretary general of the Supreme Court to submit the report in 15 days the court directed that the reconstituted bench will hold the hearing on January 29. The apex court has now finalised January 29 as the next date of hearing.

Ayodhya case: Hearing adjourned after judge recuses himself; new five-judge bench to be constituted

The Supreme Court has set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya case.&nbsp;

The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and will include Justice&nbsp;SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Five-judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court to hear Ayodhya case on January 10. <a href="https://t.co/fke7uIiAaS">pic.twitter.com/fke7uIiAaS</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1082599654662029312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 8, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Ayodhya dispute is over 2.77 acres of land over which the Babri Masjid used to stand before it was demolished on December 6, 1992. It is also the most divisive in the country.&nbsp;

On Friday, the court had said — in a hearing that lasted all of 60 seconds — that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by "the appropriate bench, as may be constituted".

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board.&nbsp;

The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011.&nbsp;

With the general elections fast approaching (they have to be held before May) the dispute, one of the country's oldest, has once again begun to take centre stage.&nbsp;

Right-wing Hindu groups have recently been calling for an ordinance saying that a temple will be built on the disputed site. Prime Minister Narendra Modi however said recently in an interview to ANI that any decision on an ordinance would be taken&nbsp;only after the Supreme Court&nbsp;had finished hearing the matter.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya case. The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and will include Justice SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud.

The Supreme Court has set up a five-judge constitution bench to hear the Ayodhya case. The bench will be headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and will include Justice SA Bobde, Justice NV Ramana, Justice UU Lalit, Justice DY Chandrachud. Five-judge Constitution bench of Supreme Court to hear Ayodhya case on January 10. pic.twitter.com/fke7uIiAaS — ANI (@ANI) January 8, 2019 × The Ayodhya dispute is over 2.77 acres of land over which the Babri Masjid used to stand before it was demolished on December 6, 1992. It is also the most divisive in the country. On Friday, the court had said — in a hearing that lasted all of 60 seconds — that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by "the appropriate bench, as may be constituted". In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had accepted that the disputed site was the birthplace of Lord Ram and had given two-thirds of it to the Hindus. The rest of the site was given to the Sunni Waqf Board. The order was appealed by both Hindu and Muslim groups in the Supreme Court — as many as 14 appeals were filed — which stayed the order in 2011. With the general elections fast approaching (they have to be held before May) the dispute, one of the country's oldest, has once again begun to take centre stage. Right-wing Hindu groups have recently been calling for an ordinance saying that a temple will be built on the disputed site. Prime Minister Narendra Modi however said recently in an interview to ANI that any decision on an ordinance would be taken only after the Supreme Court had finished hearing the matter.

5-judge Supreme Court bench to hear Ayodhya case on January 10

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to constitute a three-member bench for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case.

She said punishment must be served to those who demolished the mosque.

"Honourable SC's decision to constitute a bench for Babri Masjid/Mandir issue is a welcome step. There is also need to ensure punishment is meted out to those who demolished the Babri Masjid so that such acts are not repeated in the future," Mehbooba wrote on Twitter.

The PDP president also said the country would not have witnessed "massacres" had the culprits responsible for 1984 anti-Sikh riots been punished.

"Had the culprits responsible for 84 Sikh riots been punished, the country wouldn't have witnessed the Bombay, Meerut, Gujarat&nbsp;and other infamous massacres," she said.

The Supreme Court Friday said an "appropriate bench" on January 10 will fix the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case.

"Further orders in the matter will be passed on January 10 by the appropriate Bench, as may be constituted," said a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul.

A three-member bench is to be set up for hearing the matter on a batch of petitions.

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to constitute a three-member bench for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case.

Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Saturday welcomed the Supreme Court's decision to constitute a three-member bench for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case. She said punishment must be served to those who demolished the mosque. "Honourable SC's decision to constitute a bench for Babri Masjid/Mandir issue is a welcome step. There is also need to ensure punishment is meted out to those who demolished the Babri Masjid so that such acts are not repeated in the future," Mehbooba wrote on Twitter. The PDP president also said the country would not have witnessed "massacres" had the culprits responsible for 1984 anti-Sikh riots been punished. "Had the culprits responsible for 84 Sikh riots been punished, the country wouldn't have witnessed the Bombay, Meerut, Gujarat and other infamous massacres," she said. The Supreme Court Friday said an "appropriate bench" on January 10 will fix the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute case. "Further orders in the matter will be passed on January 10 by the appropriate Bench, as may be constituted," said a bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul. A three-member bench is to be set up for hearing the matter on a batch of petitions.

Mehbooba hails Supreme Court's decision to constitute 3-member bench for hearing Ayodhya land dispute case

Ayodhya hearing on January 10: Supreme Court

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/whenever-ram-temple-is-built-in-ayodhya-it-will-be-by-us-yogi-adityanath-186043">Ram Temple at Ayodhya</a> if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday.

"The option of an ordinance has always been there but right now the matter is before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has given January 04 as the date to decide about the next bench," said Ram Madhav.

The apex court is scheduled to take up next week the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ljp-makes-public-its-unease-with-bjp-over-ram-temple-185367">Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case</a> along with public interest litigation questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter.

The top court`s bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will decide on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench".

"We are hoping that in a very fast track way the SC will take up the matter and conclude it early. If that doesn`t happen then we have to look for other options. That Ram Temple should be built at Ayodhya is a commitment that BJP has supported 20-30 years ago," said Madhav.

The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was on December 6, 1992, pulled down allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood here.&nbsp;

Since then, several hearings have been held in the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

In 2010, the Allahabad High Court said that the disputed site in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts, with two-thirds given to Hindus and one-third to Muslims.

In 2011 the Supreme Court suspended this ruling following the appeals by both Hindu and Muslim groups. Since then, at least 14 petitions have also challenged the ruling.

The apex court in September this year, while ruling on a separate case, remarked that the mosque was "not integral to Islam", a point that bolstered the demand for the construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build Ram Temple at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday.

The BJP would have to look for `other options` to build Ram Temple at Ayodhya if the Supreme Court doesn`t fast-track the Ayodhya case and conclude it at earliest, said BJP general secretary Ram Madhav on Wednesday. "The option of an ordinance has always been there but right now the matter is before the Supreme Court and Supreme Court has given January 04 as the date to decide about the next bench," said Ram Madhav. The apex court is scheduled to take up next week the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case along with public interest litigation questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter. The top court`s bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will decide on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench". "We are hoping that in a very fast track way the SC will take up the matter and conclude it early. If that doesn`t happen then we have to look for other options. That Ram Temple should be built at Ayodhya is a commitment that BJP has supported 20-30 years ago," said Madhav. The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was on December 6, 1992, pulled down allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, claiming that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple that originally stood here. Since then, several hearings have been held in the Supreme Court to resolve the issue. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court said that the disputed site in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts, with two-thirds given to Hindus and one-third to Muslims. In 2011 the Supreme Court suspended this ruling following the appeals by both Hindu and Muslim groups. Since then, at least 14 petitions have also challenged the ruling. The apex court in September this year, while ruling on a separate case, remarked that the mosque was "not integral to Islam", a point that bolstered the demand for the construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

Open for 'other options' if SC doesn't fast track Ram temple case: Ram Madhav

Ayodhya dispute: Supreme Court to hear case on 4th January

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected a petition which sought for permission to offer 'namaz' at the Ayodhya site.

Citing that the petition as filed for "cheap publicity", the court imposed a fine for Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner.

Justices DK Arora and Alok Mathur of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the petition of Al-Rahman Trust, which had requested the court to give permission to offer namaz at the&nbsp;site.

The court directed District Magistrate Faizabad to realise the fine amount if it is not deposited by the Trust.

The hearing in the Ayodhya title case has been adjourned to January.

On September 27, the Supreme Court had rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench.

The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP. The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

(With inputs from agencies)

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected a petition which sought for permission to offer 'namaz' at the Ayodhya site. Citing that the petition as filed for "cheap publicity", the court imposed a fine for Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner.

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday rejected a petition which sought for permission to offer 'namaz' at the Ayodhya site. Citing that the petition as filed for "cheap publicity", the court imposed a fine for Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner. Justices DK Arora and Alok Mathur of the Lucknow bench of the high court passed the order on the petition of Al-Rahman Trust, which had requested the court to give permission to offer namaz at the site. The court directed District Magistrate Faizabad to realise the fine amount if it is not deposited by the Trust. The hearing in the Ayodhya title case has been adjourned to January. On September 27, the Supreme Court had rejected the petition of referring the land title case to a larger bench. The petitions were filed challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the site in Ayodhya into three parts for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of UP. The petitions were also filed for reconsidering the court's 1994 verdict in which it observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". (With inputs from agencies)

High Court dismisses plea for namaz at Ayodhya site, fines petitioner Rs 5 lakh

A day before the Dharam Sabha called by the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Ayodhya was virtually turned into a fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones to keep an eye on possible mischief- mongers.

A UP Police spokesperson said one additional DGP, one deputy inspector general (DIG), three senior superintendents of police (SSPs), 10 additional SPs, 21 deputy SPs, 160 inspectors, 700 constables, 42 companies of&nbsp;PAC, five companies of RAF, ATS commandos and drones were deployed here.

When contacted, Ayodhya mayor Rishikesh Upadhyay told PTI that adequate security arrangements were made by the police and district administration in the town, located 120 km from state capital, Lucknow.&nbsp;

"As many as 13 parking slots have been provided for the event. No permission was given to the Shiv Sena by the government to hold a rally," the mayor said.

Despite a slight chill in the air, the temple town seems to be reeling under the political heat generated by the 'Dharam Sabha', being held to call for the construction of a grand temple for Lord Ram here.

A pamphlet recently released by the VHP raises the pitch for its construction. It reads "Saugandh Ram ki khaate hai, hum mandir bhavya banayenge (We pledge in the name of Lord Ram that we will build a grand temple for him)" and urges devotees to be a part of the movement.

Vishva Hindu Parishad was founded on August 29, 1964 on the auspicious day of Shri Krishna Janmasthami. Its objective is to organise, consolidate the Hindu society and serve, protect the Hindu Dharma.

The organisers of the Dharam Sabha claim the more than 3 lakh devotees of Lord Ram were likely to arrive for the programme this Sunday.

VHP media in-charge Ambuj Ojha said, "After staying in a 'taat' (tent), Lord Ram is expecting a revival of bravado among his devotees. The moment has come. The temple must be built where Ram Lalla is currently seated. Also, there should not be any mosque in the cultural boundary of Ayodhya."

On November 18, the VHP had organised a motorcycle rally in different parts of Lucknow in this regard.

Praant Sangathan mantra (Awadh) of VHP Bholendra in a written statement said this was the final Dharam Sabha for construction of Ram temple. "After this, no more Dharam Sabhas will be held and the construction of the temple will commence," he said.

The Supreme Court on November 12 had declined early hearing of petitions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul had said it already listed the appeals before the appropriate bench in January.

Earlier, a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement of the Allahabad High Court that a mosque was not integral to Islam.&nbsp;

The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

A day before the Dharam Sabha called by the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Ayodhya was virtually turned into a fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones to keep an eye on possible mischief- mongers.

A day before the Dharam Sabha called by the Vishva Hindu Parishad, Ayodhya was virtually turned into a fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones to keep an eye on possible mischief- mongers. A UP Police spokesperson said one additional DGP, one deputy inspector general (DIG), three senior superintendents of police (SSPs), 10 additional SPs, 21 deputy SPs, 160 inspectors, 700 constables, 42 companies of PAC, five companies of RAF, ATS commandos and drones were deployed here. When contacted, Ayodhya mayor Rishikesh Upadhyay told PTI that adequate security arrangements were made by the police and district administration in the town, located 120 km from state capital, Lucknow. "As many as 13 parking slots have been provided for the event. No permission was given to the Shiv Sena by the government to hold a rally," the mayor said. Despite a slight chill in the air, the temple town seems to be reeling under the political heat generated by the 'Dharam Sabha', being held to call for the construction of a grand temple for Lord Ram here. A pamphlet recently released by the VHP raises the pitch for its construction. It reads "Saugandh Ram ki khaate hai, hum mandir bhavya banayenge (We pledge in the name of Lord Ram that we will build a grand temple for him)" and urges devotees to be a part of the movement. Vishva Hindu Parishad was founded on August 29, 1964 on the auspicious day of Shri Krishna Janmasthami. Its objective is to organise, consolidate the Hindu society and serve, protect the Hindu Dharma. The organisers of the Dharam Sabha claim the more than 3 lakh devotees of Lord Ram were likely to arrive for the programme this Sunday. VHP media in-charge Ambuj Ojha said, "After staying in a 'taat' (tent), Lord Ram is expecting a revival of bravado among his devotees. The moment has come. The temple must be built where Ram Lalla is currently seated. Also, there should not be any mosque in the cultural boundary of Ayodhya." On November 18, the VHP had organised a motorcycle rally in different parts of Lucknow in this regard. Praant Sangathan mantra (Awadh) of VHP Bholendra in a written statement said this was the final Dharam Sabha for construction of Ram temple. "After this, no more Dharam Sabhas will be held and the construction of the temple will commence," he said. The Supreme Court on November 12 had declined early hearing of petitions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. A bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice S K Kaul had said it already listed the appeals before the appropriate bench in January. Earlier, a three-judge bench, by a 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement of the Allahabad High Court that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

Ayodhya turns into fortress for 'Dharam Sabha', over 3 lakh people expected

In a ground-breaking statement, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Friday urged the Supreme Court to take note of the situation in Ayodhya and call the Army, if needed, to keep it under control.

Talking to reporters, Yadav said: "The BJP does not believe in either the Supreme Court or the Constitution. The BJP can go to any extent. The kind of environment there is in Uttar Pradesh, especially in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court should take notice of it and bring Army, if necessary."

The statement comes ahead of a mass gathering by organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and some Hindu activists and saints in Ayodhya over the weekend to build up pressure on the central government for a Ram temple at the site of the razed Babri mosque.

The mega show will coincide with a two-day visit of Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray to Ayodhya.

His statement comes following the increased demand for an early court decision on the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya.

Certain sections are also pushing for an ordinance to hasten the construction process.

Earlier in the day, Shiv Sena Member of Parliament Sanjay Raut implied that it would not take long to bring an ordinance for construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya when it took only 17 minutes for the Ram bhakts (devotees) to demolish Babri Masjid.

Even BJP MLA Surendra Singh reportedly stirred up a controversy when he warned that 1992 could be repeated in Ayodhya, if required, during a "Dharam Sabha" to be held November 25.

A big push for the temple construction came on Tuesday when a litigant Mohammad Iqbal Ansari, in the Babri Masjid case, said that he does not have any objection to an ordinance for Ram temple construction.

On October 29, the Supreme Court adjourned the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit till January 2019 to fix the next hearing date in the matter, challenging the Allahabad High Court ruling of 2010.

The Allahabad High Court in its 2010 verdict had suggested a division of the disputed land in Ayodhya - one for each of the parties the Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla.

It is believed that the Babri Masjid which was constructed by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528 was allegedly demolished by Hindu activists on December 6, 1992, who claimed that the mosque was built after destructing the Ram Temple to the ground.&nbsp;

In a ground-breaking statement, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Friday urged the Supreme Court to take note of the situation in Ayodhya and call the Army, if needed, to keep it under control.

In a ground-breaking statement, former Uttar Pradesh chief minister and Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav on Friday urged the Supreme Court to take note of the situation in Ayodhya and call the Army, if needed, to keep it under control. Talking to reporters, Yadav said: "The BJP does not believe in either the Supreme Court or the Constitution. The BJP can go to any extent. The kind of environment there is in Uttar Pradesh, especially in Ayodhya, the Supreme Court should take notice of it and bring Army, if necessary." The statement comes ahead of a mass gathering by organisations such as the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and some Hindu activists and saints in Ayodhya over the weekend to build up pressure on the central government for a Ram temple at the site of the razed Babri mosque. The mega show will coincide with a two-day visit of Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray to Ayodhya. His statement comes following the increased demand for an early court decision on the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. Certain sections are also pushing for an ordinance to hasten the construction process. Earlier in the day, Shiv Sena Member of Parliament Sanjay Raut implied that it would not take long to bring an ordinance for construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya when it took only 17 minutes for the Ram bhakts (devotees) to demolish Babri Masjid. Even BJP MLA Surendra Singh reportedly stirred up a controversy when he warned that 1992 could be repeated in Ayodhya, if required, during a "Dharam Sabha" to be held November 25. A big push for the temple construction came on Tuesday when a litigant Mohammad Iqbal Ansari, in the Babri Masjid case, said that he does not have any objection to an ordinance for Ram temple construction. On October 29, the Supreme Court adjourned the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit till January 2019 to fix the next hearing date in the matter, challenging the Allahabad High Court ruling of 2010. The Allahabad High Court in its 2010 verdict had suggested a division of the disputed land in Ayodhya - one for each of the parties the Nirmohi Akhara, the Sunni Waqf Board and Ram Lalla. It is believed that the Babri Masjid which was constructed by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528 was allegedly demolished by Hindu activists on December 6, 1992, who claimed that the mosque was built after destructing the Ram Temple to the ground.

Supreme Court should send Army to Ayodhya if necessary: Akhilesh Yadav

Shiv Sena MP Arvind Sawant said Friday his party is pushing for construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya because it was promised by the BJP ahead of elections.

Speaking to a news channel on-board a flight to Uttar Pradesh, he said people of the country were promised that a Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya once the BJP comes to power at the Centre.

Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray will visit Ayodhya Saturday amid a clamour among Hindu outfits for bringing an ordinance to build Ram Temple.

The Sena, which is part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) but has had strained ties with ally BJP, has demanded the Centre come out with an ordinance and declare a date for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya.

"We have promised to the people of the country that once we come to power Ram mandir will be constructed at Ayodhya," Sawant said.

"We are forgetting that promise. Therefore, Uddhav ji has taken this initiative. We have given the slogan 'Har Hindu ki yahi pukaar, pehle mandir phir sarkar'," he added.

Meanwhile, 12 Vibhag Pramukhs/Vibhag Sanghataks (office-bearers) of the party have been tasked with organising "maha aartis" (grand prayers) simultaneously at 6 pm Saturday at several temples in Mumbai to coincide with Thackeray's Ayodhya visit.

A Sena functionary, requesting anonymity, said the district administration in Ayodhya has denied permission to Thackeray to hold a rally on November 25 in the holy town of Uttar Pradesh.

"Uddhav ji will perform an evening maha aarti on the banks of river Sarayu on November 24 and the next day will visit the site of Ram temple in Ayodhya," he said.

The local administration has imposed CrPC section 144 in Ayodhya, restricting assembly of people, he said.

Meanwhile, former Sena MLC Ghanshyam Dube said before expanding its base in North India, the Sena should make Hindi- speaking people living in Mumbai feel safe.

Speaking to reporters in Vidhan Bhavan Thursday, he disclosed Sena founder Bal Thackeray had confided in him that he wanted to expand the Sena's support base in North India.

"However, after that the Sena leadership, for some strange reasons, did not trust me to do the job. Before the Ayodhya visit, the Sena should have first tried to make the North Indian community feel at home whose generations have lived here," Dube said.

According to a senior BJP minister in Maharashtra,the Sena is waiting for the results of assembly polls in three BJP -ruled states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh before taking a decision on continuing in the NDA.

The results will be announced on December 11.&nbsp;

Shiv Sena MP Arvind Sawant said Friday his party is pushing for construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya because it was promised by the BJP ahead of elections. Speaking to a news channel on-board a flight to Uttar Pradesh, he said people of the country were promised that a Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya once the BJP comes to power at the Centre.

Shiv Sena MP Arvind Sawant said Friday his party is pushing for construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya because it was promised by the BJP ahead of elections. Speaking to a news channel on-board a flight to Uttar Pradesh, he said people of the country were promised that a Ram temple will be constructed in Ayodhya once the BJP comes to power at the Centre. Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray will visit Ayodhya Saturday amid a clamour among Hindu outfits for bringing an ordinance to build Ram Temple. The Sena, which is part of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) but has had strained ties with ally BJP, has demanded the Centre come out with an ordinance and declare a date for the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. "We have promised to the people of the country that once we come to power Ram mandir will be constructed at Ayodhya," Sawant said. "We are forgetting that promise. Therefore, Uddhav ji has taken this initiative. We have given the slogan 'Har Hindu ki yahi pukaar, pehle mandir phir sarkar'," he added. Meanwhile, 12 Vibhag Pramukhs/Vibhag Sanghataks (office-bearers) of the party have been tasked with organising "maha aartis" (grand prayers) simultaneously at 6 pm Saturday at several temples in Mumbai to coincide with Thackeray's Ayodhya visit. A Sena functionary, requesting anonymity, said the district administration in Ayodhya has denied permission to Thackeray to hold a rally on November 25 in the holy town of Uttar Pradesh. "Uddhav ji will perform an evening maha aarti on the banks of river Sarayu on November 24 and the next day will visit the site of Ram temple in Ayodhya," he said. The local administration has imposed CrPC section 144 in Ayodhya, restricting assembly of people, he said. Meanwhile, former Sena MLC Ghanshyam Dube said before expanding its base in North India, the Sena should make Hindi- speaking people living in Mumbai feel safe. Speaking to reporters in Vidhan Bhavan Thursday, he disclosed Sena founder Bal Thackeray had confided in him that he wanted to expand the Sena's support base in North India. "However, after that the Sena leadership, for some strange reasons, did not trust me to do the job. Before the Ayodhya visit, the Sena should have first tried to make the North Indian community feel at home whose generations have lived here," Dube said. According to a senior BJP minister in Maharashtra,the Sena is waiting for the results of assembly polls in three BJP -ruled states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh before taking a decision on continuing in the NDA. The results will be announced on December 11.

Ram temple in Ayodhya is a pre-poll promise: Shiv Sena MP

ayodhya-case

Ayodhya Case, News on Ayodhya Case, stories on Ayodhya Case, articles on Ayodhya Case, Ayodhya Case stories at Wion, Ayodhya Case news, Ayodhya Case latest news

ayodhya case