After UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath decided to name Faizabad distrct as Ayodhya, he comfirmed on Wednesday that a grand statue of Lord Ram will soon be built in Ayodhya.

“Sri Ram ki ek darshaniya murti sthapit ho,bhumi ke anusar uske bare mein charcha karenge. Pujaniya murti mandir mein hogi, lekin ek darshaniya murti jo yahan ki pehchan ban sake. Hum wo sari vyavasthaein karenge jisse astha ka samman bhi ho aur Ayodhya ki pehchan ban sake (The establishment of Sri Ram's visiting statue will be discussed as per land requirements. The statue will be placed in the temple, but it will be the identity of Ayodhya. We'll arrange all the nesseccities to make the statue the pride of Ayodhya),” said the chief minister.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Sri Ram ki ek darshaniya murti sthapit ho,bhumi ke anusar uske bare mein charcha karenge. Pujaniya murti mandir mein hogi, lekin ek darshaniya murti jo yahan ki pehchan ban sake. Hum wo sari vyavasthaein karenge jisse astha ka samman bhi ho aur Ayodhya ki pehchan ban sake: UP CM <a href="https://t.co/7j30uWNeWX">pic.twitter.com/7j30uWNeWX</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1060052829677805568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 7, 2018</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>

He made the announcement while addressing the crowd at "Deepotsav" on Diwali eve.

The Uttar Pradesh government had announced its intention to build a landmark statue of Lord Ram last year, but there has been no progress since.&nbsp; 
Adityanath informed that the land for the statue has already been identified, which will be built through partial crowd-funding.

While the airport will be named after Lord Ram, the medical college will be named after Raja Dasrath, the father of Lord Ram in the epic Ramayana.

After UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath decided to name Faizabad distrct as Ayodhya, he comfirmed on Wednesday that a grand statue of Lord Ram will soon be built in Ayodhya.

After UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath decided to name Faizabad distrct as Ayodhya, he comfirmed on Wednesday that a grand statue of Lord Ram will soon be built in Ayodhya. “Sri Ram ki ek darshaniya murti sthapit ho,bhumi ke anusar uske bare mein charcha karenge. Pujaniya murti mandir mein hogi, lekin ek darshaniya murti jo yahan ki pehchan ban sake. Hum wo sari vyavasthaein karenge jisse astha ka samman bhi ho aur Ayodhya ki pehchan ban sake (The establishment of Sri Ram's visiting statue will be discussed as per land requirements. The statue will be placed in the temple, but it will be the identity of Ayodhya. We'll arrange all the nesseccities to make the statue the pride of Ayodhya),” said the chief minister. Sri Ram ki ek darshaniya murti sthapit ho,bhumi ke anusar uske bare mein charcha karenge. Pujaniya murti mandir mein hogi, lekin ek darshaniya murti jo yahan ki pehchan ban sake. Hum wo sari vyavasthaein karenge jisse astha ka samman bhi ho aur Ayodhya ki pehchan ban sake: UP CM pic.twitter.com/7j30uWNeWX — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) November 7, 2018 × He made the announcement while addressing the crowd at "Deepotsav" on Diwali eve. The Uttar Pradesh government had announced its intention to build a landmark statue of Lord Ram last year, but there has been no progress since. Adityanath informed that the land for the statue has already been identified, which will be built through partial crowd-funding. While the airport will be named after Lord Ram, the medical college will be named after Raja Dasrath, the father of Lord Ram in the epic Ramayana.

Will build grand statue of Lord Ram in Ayodhya soon, says Yogi Adityanath

Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor Saturday alleged the trend of erecting statues and

Raising the issue of Ram temple at Ayodhya were attempts to distract the masses from "failures" of the BJP government at the Centre.

He said the trend of erecting statues reminded him of the Roman empire when people where distracted from the oppression they faced through 'bread and circuses' (distribution of free food and staging of huge spectacles).&nbsp;

"The issues of Statue of Unity, Ram temple, Ram statue at Ayodhya are distractions. I would urge the public of India to move away from these distractions and focus on the realities and lives of the Indians," the Congress MP said.

"The reality is the Indian Aam Aadmi (common man) has been suffering for the last four and half years... This suits the agenda of the government that has failed to perform," he said.

Tharoor's comment comes in the backdrop of plans to install a statue of Lord Ram on the banks of the Sarayu river in Ayodhya.

Joining the chorus for the construction of Ram temple in the Uttar Pradesh pilgrim town of Ayodhya, Union minister Vijay Goel had Friday said it should be done at the earliest through any means -- constitutional, legislative, judicial or community dialogue.

The VHP and RSS have demanded an ordinance to acquire land for constructing the temple in Ayodhya.&nbsp;

Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor Saturday alleged the trend of erecting statues and Raising the issue of Ram temple at Ayodhya were attempts to distract the masses from "failures" of the BJP government at the Centre.

Senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor Saturday alleged the trend of erecting statues and Raising the issue of Ram temple at Ayodhya were attempts to distract the masses from "failures" of the BJP government at the Centre. He said the trend of erecting statues reminded him of the Roman empire when people where distracted from the oppression they faced through 'bread and circuses' (distribution of free food and staging of huge spectacles). "The issues of Statue of Unity, Ram temple, Ram statue at Ayodhya are distractions. I would urge the public of India to move away from these distractions and focus on the realities and lives of the Indians," the Congress MP said. "The reality is the Indian Aam Aadmi (common man) has been suffering for the last four and half years... This suits the agenda of the government that has failed to perform," he said. Tharoor's comment comes in the backdrop of plans to install a statue of Lord Ram on the banks of the Sarayu river in Ayodhya. Joining the chorus for the construction of Ram temple in the Uttar Pradesh pilgrim town of Ayodhya, Union minister Vijay Goel had Friday said it should be done at the earliest through any means -- constitutional, legislative, judicial or community dialogue. The VHP and RSS have demanded an ordinance to acquire land for constructing the temple in Ayodhya.

Ram statue, temple attempts to distract masses from Centre's failures: Shashi Tharoor

RSS declaration on Ram temple was akin to a carefully crafted ballroom dance metamorphosing into a break dance.&nbsp;

RSS and BJP for years had maintained that temple was a matter of faith but would patiently wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue challenging the legitimacy of the land.&nbsp;

This is the third time BJP has taken political stands which stands in opposition to a judicial verdict for electoral ends.

First BJP gave legitimacy to Jallikattu protest by ensuring an enabling legislation which overturned the court’s verdict.&nbsp;

The second time BJP openly went against the Sabarimala verdict. This is the third time when RSS has openly criticised the Supreme Court. 
&nbsp; 
The press conference not only announced the intention of the possibility of a political mobilisation akin to 1992 but also reaffirmed that commitment to Palanpur Session.&nbsp;

It was also a veiled threat of patience running thin and even Supreme Court’s view can be subservient to majority sentiments. 
&nbsp; 
This brings us to the question as to why Ram Temple has become a burning political issue? What has happened in last 2 years that BJP and RSS have increasingly turned to Ram Temple as an issue to mobilise its core voters? Is it because BJP stumped everyone on the shamshan and kabristan issue?

The answer to this question this lies to the realisation that BJP as a party only remains appealing to its core voters till it remains committed to the idea of cultural nationalism and the majoritarian idea of India. 
&nbsp; 
BJP in 1989 adopted Ram Temple as a party issue at Palanpur Session. So, technically it is not a U-turn. It only finishes the ambiguity of patience and long wait. The statement makes it clear that RSS expects the verdict in a certain way and would want the courts to take note of it.

So what happens to glasnost and perestroika which was announced with great fanfare after Mohan Bhagwat’s three-day seminar? Is it a reminder to the government that private member bills be moved and ordinance option should be explored? 
&nbsp; 
In my opinion, it all boils down to keeping the expectation of the people high on the issue - Hindu getting victimised by elitist institutions like courts. The idea is to keep the pot boiling. BJP understands that good governance and ‘Grand Alliance’ as a bad idea will not be enough to pull the Modi chariot in 2019. 
&nbsp; 
They would require much more than that. Rafale has dented the image of the government and GST’s impact is very much visible on the economy. The talk on the Ram Temple is not an act of desperation. It is based on the realisation that unless and until the politics does not remain centred around cultural nationalism as opposed to multi-culturalism BJP will not be able to stand a chance in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in 2019.

The Palampur Session in 1989 specifically mentioned that the disputed site must be handed over to Hindus either through mutual dialogue or an enabling legislation. It shows that BJP remains committed to the Palanpur resolution. The deviation took place during Vajpayee's tenure when BJP had to deep freeze Ayodhya issue because of an unwieldy coalition.

Today, BJP does not depend on alliance for running the government. The only issue it faces is that if ever they fall short of a majority in future, they could be looking at a very bleak future as the choice would get limited to a few regional parties. They will have very few options. 
 
The decision of 1992 run is also a challenge to parties which commit themselves to a multicultural secular politics. Ayodhya is many things to many people today. For some, it is only about votes. For some, it is about faith. For some, it is about Muslim domination. For some, it is about Ram’s birth. For some, it is a matter of academics. For some, it is about Hindu victimisation by foreign taught babalogs. But foremost, today it should be about the civility of exchange. It is missing on both sides even after the demolition.

Today Ayodhya is at the cusp of deciding the destiny of our country. When Ataturk converted Hagia Sophia into a museum, the world knew where Turkey would be heading. It became a modern secular nation. A temple in Ayodhya will not make India a theocracy, but if the temple is made through coercion then it would definitely mutate us from the idea as we were conceived as nation in 1947 by our founding fathers. It will be far removed from Gandhi’s Ram Rajya. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

RSS declaration on Ram temple was akin to a carefully crafted ballroom dance metamorphosing into a break dance. RSS and BJP for years had maintained that temple was a matter of faith but would patiently wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue challenging the legitimacy of the land.

RSS declaration on Ram temple was akin to a carefully crafted ballroom dance metamorphosing into a break dance. RSS and BJP for years had maintained that temple was a matter of faith but would patiently wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court on the issue challenging the legitimacy of the land. This is the third time BJP has taken political stands which stands in opposition to a judicial verdict for electoral ends. First BJP gave legitimacy to Jallikattu protest by ensuring an enabling legislation which overturned the court’s verdict. The second time BJP openly went against the Sabarimala verdict. This is the third time when RSS has openly criticised the Supreme Court. The press conference not only announced the intention of the possibility of a political mobilisation akin to 1992 but also reaffirmed that commitment to Palanpur Session. It was also a veiled threat of patience running thin and even Supreme Court’s view can be subservient to majority sentiments. This brings us to the question as to why Ram Temple has become a burning political issue? What has happened in last 2 years that BJP and RSS have increasingly turned to Ram Temple as an issue to mobilise its core voters? Is it because BJP stumped everyone on the shamshan and kabristan issue? The answer to this question this lies to the realisation that BJP as a party only remains appealing to its core voters till it remains committed to the idea of cultural nationalism and the majoritarian idea of India. BJP in 1989 adopted Ram Temple as a party issue at Palanpur Session. So, technically it is not a U-turn. It only finishes the ambiguity of patience and long wait. The statement makes it clear that RSS expects the verdict in a certain way and would want the courts to take note of it. So what happens to glasnost and perestroika which was announced with great fanfare after Mohan Bhagwat’s three-day seminar? Is it a reminder to the government that private member bills be moved and ordinance option should be explored? In my opinion, it all boils down to keeping the expectation of the people high on the issue - Hindu getting victimised by elitist institutions like courts. The idea is to keep the pot boiling. BJP understands that good governance and ‘Grand Alliance’ as a bad idea will not be enough to pull the Modi chariot in 2019. They would require much more than that. Rafale has dented the image of the government and GST’s impact is very much visible on the economy. The talk on the Ram Temple is not an act of desperation. It is based on the realisation that unless and until the politics does not remain centred around cultural nationalism as opposed to multi-culturalism BJP will not be able to stand a chance in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections in 2019. The Palampur Session in 1989 specifically mentioned that the disputed site must be handed over to Hindus either through mutual dialogue or an enabling legislation. It shows that BJP remains committed to the Palanpur resolution. The deviation took place during Vajpayee's tenure when BJP had to deep freeze Ayodhya issue because of an unwieldy coalition. Today, BJP does not depend on alliance for running the government. The only issue it faces is that if ever they fall short of a majority in future, they could be looking at a very bleak future as the choice would get limited to a few regional parties. They will have very few options. The decision of 1992 run is also a challenge to parties which commit themselves to a multicultural secular politics. Ayodhya is many things to many people today. For some, it is only about votes. For some, it is about faith. For some, it is about Muslim domination. For some, it is about Ram’s birth. For some, it is a matter of academics. For some, it is about Hindu victimisation by foreign taught babalogs. But foremost, today it should be about the civility of exchange. It is missing on both sides even after the demolition. Today Ayodhya is at the cusp of deciding the destiny of our country. When Ataturk converted Hagia Sophia into a museum, the world knew where Turkey would be heading. It became a modern secular nation. A temple in Ayodhya will not make India a theocracy, but if the temple is made through coercion then it would definitely mutate us from the idea as we were conceived as nation in 1947 by our founding fathers. It will be far removed from Gandhi’s Ram Rajya. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Ayodhya 2.0: RSS and BJP go back to basics

The Supreme Court has made it clear&nbsp;that it will not come under any kind of pressure in relation to cases like the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. In a four-minute long proceeding, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, ruled that the court will take up the Ayodhya case in January 2019. When pressed by the advocate for the government of Uttar Pradesh, Gogoi said, “We have our own priorities”, and moved on to the next case. &nbsp;

Understandably, this perfunctory adjournment has raised the hackles of the VHP and BJP, both members of the Sangh Parivar, which is considered to be the driving force behind the demand for a Ram temple at the disputed site. Notably, despite the matter being sub-judice, the RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat has recently made several statements about hastening the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya.&nbsp;

However, with the Supreme Court’s clear orders, one thing has become clear, country's top court is taking a mature and circumspect view of the matter given that elections are due in four states in November, and at least in three of these states, the Ayodhya issue, would, in any case, be exploited by political parties to derive political capital. Also, since the General elections are as of scheduled to be conducted in May 2019, the court knows that listing the case for hearings will give parties like BJP, and AIMIM an opportunity to polarise voters. &nbsp;

Religion has always been an important factor in Indian elections, but it&nbsp;has now taken centre stage&nbsp;as evidenced by the increasing polarisation among people belonging to different communities. The Ayodhya dispute has been exploited to the hilt since the late 1980s and early 1990s when the nation was in the thrall of both Hindu and Muslim hardliners. The thrall was eventually broken when months of bloody riots followed the Karsevaks’ demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992, an event that permanently tore the social fabric of India. In the decade after the demolition, successive coalition governments at the Centre were formed and felled till the National Democratic Alliance took power under the leadership of BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998. &nbsp;

In 2002, religious fundamentalism again reared its ugly head in the form of massive riots in Gujarat following the burning of several Karsevaks in a coach of a train returning from Ayodhya. But barring this incident, India largely remained free of large-scale riots through 2002-2012. The 2014 elections were preceded by riots in several states.

In the last four years, we have not seen a big riot but a series of incidents of mob violence over cow-killing and beef-consumption, inter-caste marriages, ‘love-jihad’ and ‘anti-nationalism’ have vitiated public harmony and peace in several states of the country. In fact, certain sections of Indians belonging to oppressed classes and minority groups fear a growing and violent form of majoritarianism much more than ever. &nbsp;

By keeping the Ayodhya issue off the burner before the elections the apex court has taken a wise decision. One can only hope that political parties will quickly stop their false rhetoric of making the temple through an ordinance in Parliament as that route too remains blocked till the Supreme Court decides on the matter.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has made it clear that it will not come under any kind of pressure in relation to cases like the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. In a four-minute long proceeding, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, ruled that the court will take up the Ayodhya case in January 2019.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that it will not come under any kind of pressure in relation to cases like the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. In a four-minute long proceeding, a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi, ruled that the court will take up the Ayodhya case in January 2019. When pressed by the advocate for the government of Uttar Pradesh, Gogoi said, “We have our own priorities”, and moved on to the next case. Understandably, this perfunctory adjournment has raised the hackles of the VHP and BJP, both members of the Sangh Parivar, which is considered to be the driving force behind the demand for a Ram temple at the disputed site. Notably, despite the matter being sub-judice, the RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat has recently made several statements about hastening the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. However, with the Supreme Court’s clear orders, one thing has become clear, country's top court is taking a mature and circumspect view of the matter given that elections are due in four states in November, and at least in three of these states, the Ayodhya issue, would, in any case, be exploited by political parties to derive political capital. Also, since the General elections are as of scheduled to be conducted in May 2019, the court knows that listing the case for hearings will give parties like BJP, and AIMIM an opportunity to polarise voters. Religion has always been an important factor in Indian elections, but it has now taken centre stage as evidenced by the increasing polarisation among people belonging to different communities. The Ayodhya dispute has been exploited to the hilt since the late 1980s and early 1990s when the nation was in the thrall of both Hindu and Muslim hardliners. The thrall was eventually broken when months of bloody riots followed the Karsevaks’ demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya on 6 December 1992, an event that permanently tore the social fabric of India. In the decade after the demolition, successive coalition governments at the Centre were formed and felled till the National Democratic Alliance took power under the leadership of BJP’s Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998. In 2002, religious fundamentalism again reared its ugly head in the form of massive riots in Gujarat following the burning of several Karsevaks in a coach of a train returning from Ayodhya. But barring this incident, India largely remained free of large-scale riots through 2002-2012. The 2014 elections were preceded by riots in several states. In the last four years, we have not seen a big riot but a series of incidents of mob violence over cow-killing and beef-consumption, inter-caste marriages, ‘love-jihad’ and ‘anti-nationalism’ have vitiated public harmony and peace in several states of the country. In fact, certain sections of Indians belonging to oppressed classes and minority groups fear a growing and violent form of majoritarianism much more than ever. By keeping the Ayodhya issue off the burner before the elections the apex court has taken a wise decision. One can only hope that political parties will quickly stop their false rhetoric of making the temple through an ordinance in Parliament as that route too remains blocked till the Supreme Court decides on the matter. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The court is right - no politics in Ram’s name, please

With Aamir Khan`s upcoming action-drama `Thugs of Hindostan` all set for release, the actor steered clear from any controversy by refusing to comment on the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case as he felt that doing so may stall the release of his film.

At the trailer launch of the much-awaited film, a question was posed to Khan in view of the Supreme Court hearing in the case, wherein the top court was to decide if a mosque is an essential part of the Islamic faith. The top court, however, refused to refer the matter to a larger bench.

"I will tell you why I wouldn`t speak...because our film is near release, if I say anything, it will be stopped. So, once the film is out I will answer all the questions," said the `Dangal` actor.

The reporter in his question had asked if Khan has to comment to say something in the issue since he has done a film like `P.K.` The story of the 2014 film revolved around the issue of religious dogmas in the society.

During the debate on intolerance in 2015, Khan stirred a controversy after he said that his wife Kiran Rao asked him if the couple should move out of the country, fearing the safety of their children. The 53-year-old`s `Thugs of Hindostan` also stars Amitabh Bachchan, Katrina Kaif, Fatima Sana Sheikh, Jackie Shroff and Shashank Arora and is all set to hit the theatres on November 8.

With Aamir Khan`s upcoming action-drama `Thugs of Hindostan` all set for release, the actor steered clear from any controversy by refusing to comment on the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case as he felt that doing so may stall the release of his film.

With Aamir Khan`s upcoming action-drama `Thugs of Hindostan` all set for release, the actor steered clear from any controversy by refusing to comment on the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case as he felt that doing so may stall the release of his film. At the trailer launch of the much-awaited film, a question was posed to Khan in view of the Supreme Court hearing in the case, wherein the top court was to decide if a mosque is an essential part of the Islamic faith. The top court, however, refused to refer the matter to a larger bench. "I will tell you why I wouldn`t speak...because our film is near release, if I say anything, it will be stopped. So, once the film is out I will answer all the questions," said the `Dangal` actor. The reporter in his question had asked if Khan has to comment to say something in the issue since he has done a film like `P.K.` The story of the 2014 film revolved around the issue of religious dogmas in the society. During the debate on intolerance in 2015, Khan stirred a controversy after he said that his wife Kiran Rao asked him if the couple should move out of the country, fearing the safety of their children. The 53-year-old`s `Thugs of Hindostan` also stars Amitabh Bachchan, Katrina Kaif, Fatima Sana Sheikh, Jackie Shroff and Shashank Arora and is all set to hit the theatres on November 8.

Why Aamir Khan chose not to comment on the Ayodhya case

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer the&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-verdict-babri-masjid-ram-mandir-today-timeline-key-events-167874">Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir</a>&nbsp;matter to a larger bench.&nbsp;In its verdict, the court said that all temples, mosques and churches are equally relevant.&nbsp;

Following is the chronology of events in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case:

1528: Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur. 
1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. Court rejects plea. 
1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure. 
1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla. 
1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files suit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols. 
1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site. 
1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site. 
February 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers. 
August 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure. 
December 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished. 
April 3, 1993: 'Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act' passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area. 
1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act. 
October 24, 1994: SC says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam. 
April 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site. 
March 13, 2003: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land. 
March 14: SC says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony. 
September 30, 2010: HC, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. 
May 9, 2011: SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya land dispute. 
February 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site. 
March 21, 2017: CJI JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties. 
August 7: SC constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC. 
August 8: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site. 
September 11: SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site. 
November 20: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow. 
December 1: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC. 
February 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals. 
March 14: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy's, seeking to intervene as parties in the case. 
April 6: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench. 
July 6: UP government tells SC some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict. 
July 20: SC reserves verdict. 
September 27: SC declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir matter to a larger bench. In its verdict, the court said that all temples, mosques and churches are equally relevant.

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir matter to a larger bench. In its verdict, the court said that all temples, mosques and churches are equally relevant. Following is the chronology of events in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case: 1528: Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur. 1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. Court rejects plea. 1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure. 1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla. 1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files suit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols. 1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site. 1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site. February 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers. August 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure. December 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished. April 3, 1993: 'Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act' passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area. 1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act. October 24, 1994: SC says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam. April 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site. March 13, 2003: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land. March 14: SC says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony. September 30, 2010: HC, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. May 9, 2011: SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya land dispute. February 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site. March 21, 2017: CJI JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties. August 7: SC constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC. August 8: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site. September 11: SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site. November 20: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow. December 1: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC. February 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals. March 14: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy's, seeking to intervene as parties in the case. April 6: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench. July 6: UP government tells SC some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict. July 20: SC reserves verdict. September 27: SC declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.

Ayodhya verdict: Chronology of events 

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/sc-verdict-babri-masjid-ram-mandir-today-timeline-key-events-167874">Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir</a> matter to a larger bench.&nbsp;

In its verdict, the court said that all temples, mosques and churches are equally relevant.&nbsp;

The verdict came on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench on the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.&nbsp;

Justice Bhushan penned down the judgment on behalf of himself and CJI Misra, Justice Nazeer drafted a separate judgment.

Justice Bhushan and CJI Misra in their majority judgment said that the observations in the 1994 verdict won't affect the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute.&nbsp;

"Observations in Ismail Faruqui case on mosques is not essential in the context of the acquisition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case," Justice Bhushan said.&nbsp;

The apex court said now the civil suit on land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench from&nbsp;October 29 as Justice Misra will retire on October 2 as the CJI, according to ANI.

A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer had taken up the long-pending Ayodhya land title appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgment of 2010, which had ordered a three-way partition of the disputed land.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has been hearing the pleas against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, which had passed an order to divide the disputed land into three portions.

Earlier, CJI Dipak Misra had said that the appeals would be treated as purely a civil suit consisting of a land dispute and religion would not play any role in the verdict, however, during the hearings, Muslim petitioners argued that Constitution bench should first rule on the importance of mosque in Islam.&nbsp;&nbsp;

1994 Ismail Faruqui verdict

In 1994, a five-judge Constitution Bench, hearing the M Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India case, had held that a mosque was not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and hence “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”. This issue has now come up during the hearing of the Ayodhya title suit.

Every immovable property is liable to be acquired.&nbsp;

While offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, it's offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential or integral part of such religious practice unless the place has a particular significance for that religion so as to form an essential or integral part thereof.

Which means that the SC adjudged that offering namaz at a mosque was not integral to Islam unless that mosque had any particular significance in Islam.

The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to refer the Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir matter to a larger bench. In its verdict, the court said that all temples, mosques and churches are equally relevant. The verdict came on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench on the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam. Justice Bhushan penned down the judgment on behalf of himself and CJI Misra, Justice Nazeer drafted a separate judgment. Justice Bhushan and CJI Misra in their majority judgment said that the observations in the 1994 verdict won't affect the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute. "Observations in Ismail Faruqui case on mosques is not essential in the context of the acquisition of mosque and made with respect to the facts of that case," Justice Bhushan said. The apex court said now the civil suit on land dispute will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench from October 29 as Justice Misra will retire on October 2 as the CJI, according to ANI. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer had taken up the long-pending Ayodhya land title appeals against the Allahabad High Court judgment of 2010, which had ordered a three-way partition of the disputed land. The Supreme Court has been hearing the pleas against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, which had passed an order to divide the disputed land into three portions. Earlier, CJI Dipak Misra had said that the appeals would be treated as purely a civil suit consisting of a land dispute and religion would not play any role in the verdict, however, during the hearings, Muslim petitioners argued that Constitution bench should first rule on the importance of mosque in Islam. 1994 Ismail Faruqui verdict In 1994, a five-judge Constitution Bench, hearing the M Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India case, had held that a mosque was not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and hence “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”. This issue has now come up during the hearing of the Ayodhya title suit. Every immovable property is liable to be acquired. While offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, it's offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential or integral part of such religious practice unless the place has a particular significance for that religion so as to form an essential or integral part thereof. Which means that the SC adjudged that offering namaz at a mosque was not integral to Islam unless that mosque had any particular significance in Islam.

Ayodhya verdict: SC declines to refer 1994 judgement to larger bench

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict Thursday on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will pronounce the verdict.&nbsp;

M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.

It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the "sweeping" observation of the apex court in the verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as "it had and will have a bearing" on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts.

The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier told the top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of the observation in the 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century".

He had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant since 1994, nor in the present appeals which were filed in 2010 after the high court's verdict.

The state government had said the law decided by the top court in the Ismail Farooqi case was "the correct law which does not deserve to be disturbed either by referring it as belatedly prayed for or otherwise".

Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.

The observations were made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site and the apex court had to consider two aspects as to whether a mosque could be acquired at all and whether a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict Thursday on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict Thursday on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will pronounce the verdict. M Siddiq, one of the original litigants of the Ayodhya case who has died and is being represented through his legal heir, had assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam. It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the "sweeping" observation of the apex court in the verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as "it had and will have a bearing" on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts. The Uttar Pradesh government had earlier told the top court that some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing in the "long-pending" Ayodhya temple-mosque land dispute case by seeking reconsideration of the observation in the 1994 verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for "almost a century". He had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant since 1994, nor in the present appeals which were filed in 2010 after the high court's verdict. The state government had said the law decided by the top court in the Ismail Farooqi case was "the correct law which does not deserve to be disturbed either by referring it as belatedly prayed for or otherwise". Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the 1994 verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench. The observations were made in the land acquisition matter pertaining to the Ayodhya site and the apex court had to consider two aspects as to whether a mosque could be acquired at all and whether a religious place of worship like a mosque, church or temple was immune from acquisition if it was a place of special significance for that religion and formed its essential and integral part. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

SC verdict today on plea for hearing by larger bench on whether mosques are integral to Islam

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it.

Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench.

Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only.

Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench.

The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15.&nbsp

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a 'property dispute' and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench

Hindu religious bodies on Friday told the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya was purely a "property dispute" and the issue of political or religious senstivities cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it. Salve said that as per the prevalent practices and traditions of the apex court, the appeals against orders passed by a full bench of any high court have always come up for adjudication before a three-judge bench of the top court, instead of a two-judge bench. Senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for the deity, Ram Lalla Virajman, also supported Salve's arguments and said the matter should be heard by a three-judge bench only. Senior advocate Raju Ramachandaran, appearing for the Muslim bodies and petitioner M Siddiq, said that looking at the sensitivities of the matter and its sheer importance, the case should be referred to a larger bench. The hearing remained inconclusive and would continue on May 15. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ayodhya case purely a 'property dispute': Hindu bodies to Supreme Court

The Supreme court of India will examine whether the mosque is an integral part of Islam or not while adjudicating the Ayodhya&nbsp;Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.

Also read:&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-supreme-court-sets-april-6-as-date-of-hearing-36864">Supreme Court sets April 6 as </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-supreme-court-sets-april-6-as-date-of-hearing-36864">date</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-dispute-supreme-court-sets-april-6-as-date-of-hearing-36864">&nbsp;of hearing of Ayodhya dispute</a>

A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, would also examine whether a five-judge bench is needed to go into the question.

However, the top court declined the demand by a senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that dispute should also be referred to a larger bench.

The question posed by the court is expected to further delay the long going&nbsp;Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case verdict.

The court will next hear the case on April 6.

The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla.

It had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy.

The bench had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528.&nbsp;

On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque.

The Supreme court of India will examine whether the mosque is an integral part of Islam or not while adjudicating the Ayodhya dispute

The Supreme court of India will examine whether the mosque is an integral part of Islam or not while adjudicating the Ayodhya Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. Also read: Supreme Court sets April 6 as date of hearing of Ayodhya dispute A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, would also examine whether a five-judge bench is needed to go into the question. However, the top court declined the demand by a senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan that dispute should also be referred to a larger bench. The question posed by the court is expected to further delay the long going Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case verdict. The court will next hear the case on April 6. The top court is hearing 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court that that had ruled on a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lalla. It had dismissed all 32 intervention petitions in the case, including of filmmaker Shyam Benegal, actress Aparna Sen, social activist Teesta Setalvad and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy. The bench had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The Babri Masjid, a centuries-old point of tussle between the Hindus and the Muslims, was built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528. On December 6, 1992, the mosque was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks, claiming that the Ram temple that originally stood there and had been demolished to construct the mosque.

Babri Masjid dispute: Supreme Court to decide whether 'mosque is an integral part of Islam'

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-calls-on-maldives-to-restore-rights-of-people-and-institutions-32153">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-calls-on-maldives-to-restore-rights-of-people-and-institutions-32153"> calls on </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-calls-on-maldives-to-restore-rights-of-people-and-institutions-32153">Maldives</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-calls-on-maldives-to-restore-rights-of-people-and-institutions-32153"> to restore rights of people and institutions</a>

The United States today called on Maldives President Abdulla Yameen to ensure the proper functioning of the Parliament and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions in the country. &quot;The US calls on President Yameen, the army, and police to comply with the rule of law, implement the Supreme Court&#39;s lawful ruling, ensure the full and proper functioning of the Parliament, and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions of Maldives,&quot; a State Department spokesperson said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-start-final-hearings-in-ayodhya-case-today-32158">Supreme Court to start final hearings in Ayodhya case today</a>

The Supreme Court is likely to commence hearing today on a batch of cross-petitions challenging 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board. Today&#39;s hearing assumes significance in the wake of the rejection by a special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the vehement submission by Sunni Waqf Board and others that the pleas be heard after the next general elections.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/amazons-market-value-on-verge-of-beating-out-microsoft-32155">Amazon&#39;s market value on verge of beating out Microsoft</a>

Amazon.com Inc on Wednesday was on the verge of ending the day with a stock market value higher than Microsoft Corp&#39;s for the first time, as the online shopping behemoth weathered the recent turmoil on Wall Street. Amazon&#39;s stock was down 1.14 percent, bringing its market capitalization to $690.4 billion, while software maker Microsoft&#39;s 1.83 percent fall depressed its market capitalization to $690.3 billion.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/ahead-of-olympics-face-off-mike-pence-vows-new-north-korea-sanctions-32151">Ahead of Olympics face-off, Mike Pence vows new North Korea sanctions</a>

US Vice President Mike Pence vowed tough new sanctions against North Korea and called it the world&#39;s most tyrannical regime on Wednesday, two days before he is due to attend the winter Olympics, along with two of the North&#39;s most senior officials. Speaking in Tokyo on his way to South Korea, which is hosting the Games over the next three weeks, Pence said he would soon announce the stepped-up sanctions in an effort to pressure the North to abandon its nuclear and missile programmes.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/2000-red-fort-attack-suspect-granted-bail-32152">2000 Red Fort attack: Suspect granted bail</a>

A Delhi Court on Wednesday granted bail to Bilal Ahmad Kawa, a suspect in the terror attack at the Red Fort in 2000. Additional Sessions Judge Sidharth Sharma granted bail to Ahmad, asking him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety of like amount. The special cell of Delhi and Gujarat police&#39;s anti-terror squad arrested Bilal Ahmed Kawa, the man behind the Red Fort attack, last month.

US calls on Maldives to restore rights of people and institutions The United States today called on Maldives President Abdulla Yameen to ensure the proper functioning of the Parliament and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions in the country. "The US calls on President Yameen, the army, and police to comply with the rule of law, implement the Supreme Court's lawful ruling, ensure the full and proper functioning of the Parliament, and restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and institutions of Maldives," a State Department spokesperson said. Supreme Court to start final hearings in Ayodhya case today The Supreme Court is likely to commence hearing today on a batch of cross-petitions challenging 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board. Today's hearing assumes significance in the wake of the rejection by a special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the vehement submission by Sunni Waqf Board and others that the pleas be heard after the next general elections. Amazon's market value on verge of beating out Microsoft Amazon.com Inc on Wednesday was on the verge of ending the day with a stock market value higher than Microsoft Corp's for the first time, as the online shopping behemoth weathered the recent turmoil on Wall Street. Amazon's stock was down 1.14 percent, bringing its market capitalization to $690.4 billion, while software maker Microsoft's 1.83 percent fall depressed its market capitalization to $690.3 billion. Ahead of Olympics face-off, Mike Pence vows new North Korea sanctions US Vice President Mike Pence vowed tough new sanctions against North Korea and called it the world's most tyrannical regime on Wednesday, two days before he is due to attend the winter Olympics, along with two of the North's most senior officials. Speaking in Tokyo on his way to South Korea, which is hosting the Games over the next three weeks, Pence said he would soon announce the stepped-up sanctions in an effort to pressure the North to abandon its nuclear and missile programmes. 2000 Red Fort attack: Suspect granted bail A Delhi Court on Wednesday granted bail to Bilal Ahmad Kawa, a suspect in the terror attack at the Red Fort in 2000. Additional Sessions Judge Sidharth Sharma granted bail to Ahmad, asking him to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and a surety of like amount. The special cell of Delhi and Gujarat police's anti-terror squad arrested Bilal Ahmed Kawa, the man behind the Red Fort attack, last month.

WION Morning News brief, February 8, 2018

The Supreme Court is&nbsp;to commence hearing today on a batch of cross-petitions challenging 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.

Today&#39;s hearing assumes significance in the wake of the rejection by a special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the vehement submission by Sunni Waqf Board and others that the pleas be heard after the next general elections.

The bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had made clear on December 5 last year, that it would begin final hearing on the petitions from February 8 and had asked the parties to file the requisite pleadings in the meantime.

Senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan had contended that the civil appeals be either referred to a five or seven-judge bench or posted in 2019 keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the case and its ramifications on the country&#39;s secular fabric and polity.

The top court had asked the advocates on records (AoRs), dealing with as many 14 civil appeals against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the land dispute, to ensure that all requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered before the apex court Registry.

The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total 14 appeals filed against the High Court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties &mdash; the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

(With inputs from Agencies)

Three judges of the Supreme Court are likely to start "final hearings" on a bunch of 13 petitions over the 2.7 acres disputed Ayodhya site that is claimed by both Hindus and Muslims

The Supreme Court is to commence hearing today on a batch of cross-petitions challenging 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board. Today's hearing assumes significance in the wake of the rejection by a special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the vehement submission by Sunni Waqf Board and others that the pleas be heard after the next general elections. The bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, had made clear on December 5 last year, that it would begin final hearing on the petitions from February 8 and had asked the parties to file the requisite pleadings in the meantime. Senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan had contended that the civil appeals be either referred to a five or seven-judge bench or posted in 2019 keeping in mind the sensitive nature of the case and its ramifications on the country's secular fabric and polity. The top court had asked the advocates on records (AoRs), dealing with as many 14 civil appeals against the 2010 judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the land dispute, to ensure that all requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered before the apex court Registry. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total 14 appeals filed against the High Court judgement delivered in four civil suits. A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. (With inputs from Agencies)

Supreme Court to start final hearings in Ayodhya case today

After a series of unprecedented scenes and drama in the matter of Centre vs Delhi in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan has said he will quit court practice&nbsp;citing &quot;humiliation&quot;.

That means he will no longer appear in court.&nbsp;

In his letter to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Dhawan complained of a humiliating end to the case of allocation of power between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor, leaving him with no option but to give up his court practice.&nbsp;

As per media reports, the last date of hearing in the matter witnessed some unsavoury back-and-forth which irked the Chief Justice of India. 
&nbsp;&nbsp; 
Justice Misra reportedly lashed out at the conduct of the senior lawyers, which included Dhawan, calling their demeanour atrocious, and adding he would be constrained to take action.&nbsp;

Justice Misra reportedly also said that the lawyers do not deserve their designation of senior advocates, or the gown they wear.&nbsp;

In his letter to Misra, Dhawan said he would be happy to return his gown but would like to keep it for the sake of memory.

Dhawan had appeared on behalf of the Delhi government in the matter. 
&nbsp;

There had been some unsavoury back-and-forth between some senior lawyers, including Dhawan, and Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra

After a series of unprecedented scenes and drama in the matter of Centre vs Delhi in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Rajeev Dhawan has said he will quit court practice citing "humiliation". That means he will no longer appear in court. In his letter to Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Dhawan complained of a humiliating end to the case of allocation of power between the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor, leaving him with no option but to give up his court practice. As per media reports, the last date of hearing in the matter witnessed some unsavoury back-and-forth which irked the Chief Justice of India. Justice Misra reportedly lashed out at the conduct of the senior lawyers, which included Dhawan, calling their demeanour atrocious, and adding he would be constrained to take action. Justice Misra reportedly also said that the lawyers do not deserve their designation of senior advocates, or the gown they wear. In his letter to Misra, Dhawan said he would be happy to return his gown but would like to keep it for the sake of memory. Dhawan had appeared on behalf of the Delhi government in the matter.

After spat with CJI, senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan quits court practice

While addressing a rally in Gujarat&#39;s Dhandhuka, Prime minister Narendra Modi has said that he has no objection to Kapil Sibal representing the Muslim community in Ayodhya case.

However, he questioned how is the case connected to Lok Sabha elections.

PM Modi said,&quot;how can he say do not find a solution to this until next election?&nbsp;how is the case connected to Lok Sabha?&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
No objection that Kapil Sibal is fighting on behalf of Muslim community but how can he say do not find a solution to this (Ayodhya issue) until next election? How is it connected to Lok Sabha elections?: PM Modi in Gujarat&#39;s Dhandhuka <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GujaratElection2017?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#GujaratElection2017</a> <a href="https://t.co/oFzXCyEWRW">pic.twitter.com/oFzXCyEWRW</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938305769019248641?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

The Sunni Waqf Board which&nbsp;is being represented by Kapil Sibal in the Ayodhya case has also disapproved Sibal&#39;s request to the Supreme Court for conducting the judgment after July 2019.

Haji Mehboob from The Sunni Waqf Board has said that Sibal asking for a delay in the judgment was wrong and that they want the court to pronounce the judgment as soon as possible.

He said: &quot;Yes Kapil Sibal is our lawyer but he is also related to a political party, his statement in Supreme Court yesterday was wrong, we want a solution to the issue at the earliest.&quot;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Yes Kapil Sibal is our lawyer but he is also related to a political party, his statement in SC yesterday was wrong, we want a solution to the issue at the earliest: Haji Mehboob,Sunni Waqf Board <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> <a href="https://t.co/CMN8MXr5ta">pic.twitter.com/CMN8MXr5ta</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938314276044984321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

Mehboob had previously dissociated himself from Sibal&#39;s&nbsp;statement, saying &quot;we have got nothing to do with the statement&quot;.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We have got nothing to do with his statement as we are not connected to any political party or do politics. Every Hindu and Muslim of the country wants a solution to the issue soon: Haji Mehboob,Sunni Waqf Board on Kapil Sibal <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> <a href="https://t.co/AxWFB3mAoS">pic.twitter.com/AxWFB3mAoS</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938344493572485120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra recited a poetry on Kapil Sibal&#39;s request for extending the judgment of the Babri Masjid.

He sai&nbsp;&quot;Badalte hue mausam ka balata hua parwana hun mai, Gujarat mein janeudhari hindu hun toh UP-Bihar mei maulana hun main&quot;

Targetting Rahul Gandhi he said while Rahul Gandhi is a &quot;janeudhari&quot; hindu in Gujarat, he becomes a&nbsp;Muslim&nbsp;in UP-Bihar.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Badalte hue mausam ka badalta hua parwana hun main, Gujarat mein janeudhari hindu hun toh UP-Bihar mein maulana hun main: Sambit Patra, BJP on Rahul Gandhi <a href="https://t.co/FNXrvX36fJ">pic.twitter.com/FNXrvX36fJ</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938324815689129984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has Sibal&#39;s representation&nbsp;&quot;irresponsible and unfair&quot;. He said that &quot;Sibal must not forget that he had been the law minister in the past.&quot;&nbsp;

Prasad said he will ask Rahul and Sonia Gandhi to present their stand on the Ram Janambhoomi case.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
As a lawyer <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KapilSibal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KapilSibal</a> can argue any matter but he should not forget that he has been the law minister in the past. What does he mean, when he says don&#39;t hear the matter till 2019 as it will have an impact outside? It is unfair and in many ways irresponsible: RS Prasad <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> <a href="https://t.co/KfDBz8fRxI">pic.twitter.com/KfDBz8fRxI</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938318660149551104?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I am going to ask Rahul Gandhi &amp; Sonia Gandhi, please explain your party&#39;s position on should the Ram Janambhoomi case be heard at the earliest or not?: RS Prasad, Union Law minister
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938318923614765056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 6, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

Earlier, BJP president Amit Shah had asked&nbsp;Congress to clear its&nbsp;stand on temple issue. He said at a point when Rahul&nbsp;Gandhi is visiting temples in Gujarat, Kapil Sibal is asking for a delay in Ram Janambhoomi case.&nbsp;

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/a-wion-perspective-ayodhyas-temple-of-harmony-7163" target="_blank">Ayodhya Babri Masjid case</a>&nbsp;had asked the Supreme Court yesterday to take up the matter on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete.&nbsp; &nbsp;

He told the Supreme Court that serious repercussions will be created outside the court, whenever the matter is heard. To preserve the decorum of law and order, the court should conduct the proceedings after all pleadings are complete.&nbsp;

The Supreme court has fixed the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799" target="_blank">&nbsp;Ayodhya dispute matter</a>&nbsp;for further hearing on February 8, 2018.

Twitterati also reacted to Kapil Sibal&#39;s request to extend the court proceedings t0 2019.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Every Sensible Person Wants To Speed Up The Judicial Process But This Hypocrite Kapil Sibal Threatens To Walk Out So That <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> Ram Mandir Verdict Can Be Delayed To Post 2019 Elections. Hypocrite Congress Can Stoop To Any Low For &quot;Vote Bank&quot; Appeasement. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RamMandir?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RamMandir</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KapilSibal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KapilSibal</a> <a href="https://t.co/d9IiE2UbN6">pic.twitter.com/d9IiE2UbN6</a>
&mdash; Sir Ravindra Jadeja (@SirJadeja) <a href="https://twitter.com/SirJadeja/status/938016714654183426?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Those who think India&#39;s only enemy are Pakistan &amp; China must not forget Congress. Thanks to lord Ram coz of him many traitors like Kapil Sibal are exposed over Ram Mandir debate in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> . These hypocrites have made <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RamTemple?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RamTemple</a> issue a laughing stock. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KapilSibal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KapilSibal</a>
&mdash; Ravi ???? (@hypernationlist) <a href="https://twitter.com/hypernationlist/status/938023344800067584?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
From defending <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/kanhaiyakumar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#kanhaiyakumar</a> to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HardikPatel?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HardikPatel</a> from supporting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TripleTalaq?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#TripleTalaq</a> &amp; <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/AIMPLB?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#AIMPLB</a> to <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SunniWaqfBoard?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SunniWaqfBoard</a> in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KapilSibal?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#KapilSibal</a> has a long list of Such clients. HIS CHOICE. 
May Ram Lalla bless him!
&mdash; Monika Arora (@advmonikaarora) <a href="https://twitter.com/advmonikaarora/status/937942658114138112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 5, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

While addressing a rally in Gujarat's Dhandhuka, Prime minister Narendra Modi has said that he has no objection to Kapil Sibal representing the Muslim community in Ayodhya case. He, however, questioned how is the case connected to Lok Sabha elections

While addressing a rally in Gujarat's Dhandhuka, Prime minister Narendra Modi has said that he has no objection to Kapil Sibal representing the Muslim community in Ayodhya case. However, he questioned how is the case connected to Lok Sabha elections. PM Modi said,"how can he say do not find a solution to this until next election? how is the case connected to Lok Sabha?" No objection that Kapil Sibal is fighting on behalf of Muslim community but how can he say do not find a solution to this (Ayodhya issue) until next election? How is it connected to Lok Sabha elections?: PM Modi in Gujarat's Dhandhuka #GujaratElection2017 pic.twitter.com/oFzXCyEWRW — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × The Sunni Waqf Board which is being represented by Kapil Sibal in the Ayodhya case has also disapproved Sibal's request to the Supreme Court for conducting the judgment after July 2019. Haji Mehboob from The Sunni Waqf Board has said that Sibal asking for a delay in the judgment was wrong and that they want the court to pronounce the judgment as soon as possible. He said: "Yes Kapil Sibal is our lawyer but he is also related to a political party, his statement in Supreme Court yesterday was wrong, we want a solution to the issue at the earliest." Yes Kapil Sibal is our lawyer but he is also related to a political party, his statement in SC yesterday was wrong, we want a solution to the issue at the earliest: Haji Mehboob,Sunni Waqf Board #Ayodhya pic.twitter.com/CMN8MXr5ta — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × Mehboob had previously dissociated himself from Sibal's statement, saying "we have got nothing to do with the statement". We have got nothing to do with his statement as we are not connected to any political party or do politics. Every Hindu and Muslim of the country wants a solution to the issue soon: Haji Mehboob,Sunni Waqf Board on Kapil Sibal #Ayodhya pic.twitter.com/AxWFB3mAoS — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × BJP spokesperson Sambit Patra recited a poetry on Kapil Sibal's request for extending the judgment of the Babri Masjid. He sai "Badalte hue mausam ka balata hua parwana hun mai, Gujarat mein janeudhari hindu hun toh UP-Bihar mei maulana hun main" Targetting Rahul Gandhi he said while Rahul Gandhi is a "janeudhari" hindu in Gujarat, he becomes a Muslim in UP-Bihar. Badalte hue mausam ka badalta hua parwana hun main, Gujarat mein janeudhari hindu hun toh UP-Bihar mein maulana hun main: Sambit Patra, BJP on Rahul Gandhi pic.twitter.com/FNXrvX36fJ — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × Union law minister Ravi Shankar Prasad has Sibal's representation "irresponsible and unfair". He said that "Sibal must not forget that he had been the law minister in the past." Prasad said he will ask Rahul and Sonia Gandhi to present their stand on the Ram Janambhoomi case. As a lawyer #KapilSibal can argue any matter but he should not forget that he has been the law minister in the past. What does he mean, when he says don't hear the matter till 2019 as it will have an impact outside? It is unfair and in many ways irresponsible: RS Prasad #Ayodhya pic.twitter.com/KfDBz8fRxI — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × I am going to ask Rahul Gandhi & Sonia Gandhi, please explain your party's position on should the Ram Janambhoomi case be heard at the earliest or not?: RS Prasad, Union Law minister — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × Earlier, BJP president Amit Shah had asked Congress to clear its stand on temple issue. He said at a point when Rahul Gandhi is visiting temples in Gujarat, Kapil Sibal is asking for a delay in Ram Janambhoomi case. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya Babri Masjid case had asked the Supreme Court yesterday to take up the matter on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete. He told the Supreme Court that serious repercussions will be created outside the court, whenever the matter is heard. To preserve the decorum of law and order, the court should conduct the proceedings after all pleadings are complete. The Supreme court has fixed the Ayodhya dispute matter for further hearing on February 8, 2018. Twitterati also reacted to Kapil Sibal's request to extend the court proceedings t0 2019. Every Sensible Person Wants To Speed Up The Judicial Process But This Hypocrite Kapil Sibal Threatens To Walk Out So That #Ayodhya Ram Mandir Verdict Can Be Delayed To Post 2019 Elections. Hypocrite Congress Can Stoop To Any Low For "Vote Bank" Appeasement. #RamMandir #KapilSibal pic.twitter.com/d9IiE2UbN6 — Sir Ravindra Jadeja (@SirJadeja) December 5, 2017 × Those who think India's only enemy are Pakistan & China must not forget Congress. Thanks to lord Ram coz of him many traitors like Kapil Sibal are exposed over Ram Mandir debate in #Ayodhya . These hypocrites have made #RamTemple issue a laughing stock. #KapilSibal — Ravi ???? (@hypernationlist) December 5, 2017 × From defending #kanhaiyakumar to #HardikPatel from supporting #TripleTalaq & #AIMPLB to #SunniWaqfBoard in #Ayodhya#KapilSibal has a long list of Such clients. HIS CHOICE. May Ram Lalla bless him! — Monika Arora (@advmonikaarora) December 5, 2017 ×

How is Ayodhya case related to 2019 elections? PM Modi asks Kapil Sibal in Gujarat election rally

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