Indian Supreme Court delivers the judgement on the Ayodhya dispute case. Zafaryab Jilani from the AIMPLB said that they're not satisfied with the verdict'. WION also speaks to Ramakant Gaur, a Constitutional Lawyer from New Delhi to get his perspective on the verdict of Supreme Court for better clarity.

Top court delivers Ayodhya dispute judgement, 'AIMPLB not satisfied with verdict'

In this video, watch how the international media covered the landmark judgement on Ayodhya dispute. Stay tuned to find out more in details.

Watch how the international media covered the landmark judgement on Ayodhya dispute

In this segment, WION discusses how the discourse of Indian politics will change post the verdict in Ayodhya's Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.

How the discourse of Indian politics will change post Ayodhya verdict?

On the Ayodhya Verdict, WION's Correspondent Jessica Taneja ground reports directly from the Supreme Court. WION also speaks to Sumanth C. Raman, Senior Journalist from Chennai and Lord Meghnad Desai, Author & Professor Emeritus LSE to get their perspective on the verdict of Supreme Court for better clarity.

Ayodhya Verdict: WION Gound Report directly from the Supreme Court

India and Pakistan are holding separate ceremonies on the inauguration of Kartarpur Corridor.

Kartarpur Corridor: India and Pakistan hold separate ceremonies

Supreme Court of India on Saturday delivered a landmark judgement in a politically-sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi Title Suit, observing that a Ram temple will be built on the disputed 2.77 acres land in Ayodhya. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi appealed to 130 crore Indians to maintain calm and peace in the aftermath of historic Supreme Court's ruling on long-pending Ayodhya Judgment. ''The honourable Supreme Court's verdict on the Ayodhya issue shouldn't be seen as a win or loss for anybody. Be it Ram Bhakti or Rahim Bhakti, it is imperative that we strengthen the spirit of Rashtra Bhakti. May peace and harmony prevail!'' tweeted Modi immediately after the verdict.

Indian PM on Ayodhya verdict: Halls of justice have amicably concluded the matter

Muslim personal law board reacted to Supreme Court's judgment in Ayodhya case moments after the Supreme Court delivered its verdict, Sunni Waqf Board lawyer Zafaryab Jilani expressed his dissatisfaction with the judgment.

Muslim personal law board reacts to SC's judgment in Ayodhya case

Supreme Court of India on Saturday delivered a landmark judgement in a politically-sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi Title Suit, observing that a Ram temple will be built on the disputed 2.77 acres land in Ayodhya.

70-year-old Ayodhya dispute put to rest

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/supreme-court-reserves-ayodhya-verdict-after-40-days-of-hearing-256283">pronouncement of judgement</a> on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel.

A decision was made on Monday where the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has granted 15 companies of paramilitary forces to Uttar Pradesh immediately which will stay in the state till November 18.

According to a document exclusively accessed by ANI, the 15 companies of paramilitary forces include three companies each of BSF, RAF, CISF, ITBP and SSB.

The official communication also says that 15 more companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) will reach Uttar Pradesh on November 11 to stay till November 18.

The central government has also granted an extension of stay till November 18 to ten companies of Rapid Action Force (RAF) which are already deployed in Uttar Pradesh.

"Total 40 companies which include 16 companies of RAF and six companies each of CISF, ITBP, SSB and BSF will be deployed in Uttar Pradesh till November 18," an official communication said.

These paramilitary companies will be deployed in 12 most sensitive districts and cities of the state.

Apart from Varanasi and Ayodhya paramilitary forces will be deployed in Kanpur, Aligarh, Lucknow, Azamgarh etc to maintain law and order situation and ensure normalcy during and after the Ayodhya verdict.

The local administration has been asked to make arrangements for the deployment of security force personnel.

The central government is aware that even the smallest of security-related incidents could spark reactions in other states hence there is close coordination between top security departments of both the centre and UP.

Strict instructions have been given right down to the police station level that no breach of government directives on security must be tolerated.

The Supreme Court is expected to pronounce its judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case before November 17 when Chief Justice of India Ranjan <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/justice-sharad-arvind-bobde-appointed-next-cji-will-take-oath-on-november-18-258727">Gogoi demits office</a>.

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the pronouncement of judgement on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel.

In order to maintain the law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh during and after the pronouncement of judgement on the Ram Janambhoomi- Babri masjid case, the Centre has given Uttar Pradesh almost 4000 extra Paramilitary personnel. A decision was made on Monday where the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has granted 15 companies of paramilitary forces to Uttar Pradesh immediately which will stay in the state till November 18. According to a document exclusively accessed by ANI, the 15 companies of paramilitary forces include three companies each of BSF, RAF, CISF, ITBP and SSB. The official communication also says that 15 more companies of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) will reach Uttar Pradesh on November 11 to stay till November 18. The central government has also granted an extension of stay till November 18 to ten companies of Rapid Action Force (RAF) which are already deployed in Uttar Pradesh. "Total 40 companies which include 16 companies of RAF and six companies each of CISF, ITBP, SSB and BSF will be deployed in Uttar Pradesh till November 18," an official communication said. These paramilitary companies will be deployed in 12 most sensitive districts and cities of the state. Apart from Varanasi and Ayodhya paramilitary forces will be deployed in Kanpur, Aligarh, Lucknow, Azamgarh etc to maintain law and order situation and ensure normalcy during and after the Ayodhya verdict. The local administration has been asked to make arrangements for the deployment of security force personnel. The central government is aware that even the smallest of security-related incidents could spark reactions in other states hence there is close coordination between top security departments of both the centre and UP. Strict instructions have been given right down to the police station level that no breach of government directives on security must be tolerated. The Supreme Court is expected to pronounce its judgement in the decades-old Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case before November 17 when Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi demits office.

Centre gives UP 4000 CAPF personnel to maintain law and order before, after Ayodhya judgement

Sunni Waqf Board has currently withdrawn from the title suit on the last day of Ayodhya Dispute hearing. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya Dispute: Sunni Waqf Board seeks withdrawal of case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits.

"Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended.

"There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added.

The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things.

Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.

Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara.

He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case.

Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after the Hindu body contended that it had lost the records in a dacoity in 1982. Senior advocate Sushil Kumar Jain, appearing for the Akhara, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that the obstruction to worship and prayer is what forced them to file the civil suits. "Not just my right of possession but my right of management has also been taken away," he contended. "There are some property rights which the Shebiat (temple custodian-priest) enjoys. It is not just office but proprietary rights are blended with it. These Shebiats are more than mere managers. They also have proprietary rights," he added. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 142 of the Limitation Act speaks of possession of the immovable property but does not talk about management and hence the possession of property and management of worship are two different things. Yesterday, Akhara had told the top court that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then. Jain told the court that the suit was filed by his client for possession and management rights. The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih and a place known as "Janamasthan" are in the possession of the Akhara. He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961. A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case. Earlier on August 2, the top court had observed that the mediation panel on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute failed to achieve an amicable settlement and decided to hold day-to-day hearings in the decades-old case from August 6. Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Ayodhya land dispute: Supreme Court seeks evidence of possession of Ram Janmabhoomi from Nirmohi Akhara

The Supreme Court will now hear the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on a day-to-day basis starting from August 6. The apex court arrived at this decision after the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-land-dispute-case-mediation-panel-submits-report-to-supreme-court-240004">mediation panel submitted a report</a> stating that no final agreement or settlement was reached during the talks between the parties.&nbsp;

Thereby, CJI Ranjan Gogoi declared that since mediation process failed to yield positive results, the hearing in the title dispute case will resume.&nbsp;

In the last hearing, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, then the court will commence hearing the case on a day-to-day basis.

The original plaintiff had sought early hearing of the 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”.

In order to resolve the title dispute case, the apex court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah, 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.&nbsp;

The Supreme Court will now hear the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on a day-to-day basis starting from August 6. The apex court arrived at this decision after the mediation panel submitted a report stating that no final agreement or settlement was reached during the talks between the parties.

The Supreme Court will now hear the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case on a day-to-day basis starting from August 6. The apex court arrived at this decision after the mediation panel submitted a report stating that no final agreement or settlement was reached during the talks between the parties. Thereby, CJI Ranjan Gogoi declared that since mediation process failed to yield positive results, the hearing in the title dispute case will resume. In the last hearing, the top court assured that if mediation talks failed to reach an amicable solution to resolve the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, then the court will commence hearing the case on a day-to-day basis. The original plaintiff had sought early hearing of the 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”. In order to resolve the title dispute case, the apex court had appointed a mediation panel headed by former Supreme Court judge FM Khalifullah, 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 case: Mediation failed to yield results, daily hearing from August 6, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the mediation panel to resolve the Ayodhya land dispute to submit a status report in the case by July 18. The apex court has fixed July 25 as the next date for hearing. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya land dispute: Top Court likely to begin hearing from July 25

Top court of India defers Ayodhya case hearing, additional time is allowed to mediation panel till August 15. Watch this video to know more.

Ayodhya dispute: Mediation panel requested for more time

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners.&nbsp;

The 67.39 acres of land had been acquired by the central government in 1991. The 67.39 acres included the 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand. The Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.&nbsp;

With the general elections coming up, and the demands for the Ram Mandir by various Hindu groups increasing in volume — the move by the BJP-led government can be thought of as significant.&nbsp;

While the Centre has not categorically stated that the Ram Mandir will be built on the acquired land, it has asked the Supreme Court to permit it to hand over the land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is a trust that promotes construction of the temple).&nbsp;

The Centre has also requested the Supreme Court to modify its March 31, 2003 order which had stated that use of the 67.39 acres is intrinsically connected to the disputed land and will be dependent on the outcome of the civil suit being fought over it — the Allahabad High Court judgement of 2010 had distributed the disputed 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand equally among three contesting parties.&nbsp;

According to the Centre, this will enable it to “determine the exact extent of land required from out of the superfluous/ excess land to ensure that successful party in the disputed pending regarding the disputed land can have proper access to and enjoyment of rights in the disputed land.”

The Centre's application further states that according to the Ismail Faruqi Judgement of the apex court, “The interest claimed by the Muslims was only over the disputed site of 0.313 acres where the disputed structure stood before its demolition” while the other land acquired by the government under the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act 1993 “is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims.”&nbsp;

The Supreme Court had last week formed a constitution bench to hear the title dispute case which will look into the pleas challenging the 2010 Allahabad Hugh court verdict.&nbsp;

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners.

The central government has submitted an interim application to the Supreme Court asking for permission to restore 67.39 acres of the land acquired around the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site to its rightful owners. The 67.39 acres of land had been acquired by the central government in 1991. The 67.39 acres included the 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand. The Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992. With the general elections coming up, and the demands for the Ram Mandir by various Hindu groups increasing in volume — the move by the BJP-led government can be thought of as significant. While the Centre has not categorically stated that the Ram Mandir will be built on the acquired land, it has asked the Supreme Court to permit it to hand over the land to the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas (the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas is a trust that promotes construction of the temple). The Centre has also requested the Supreme Court to modify its March 31, 2003 order which had stated that use of the 67.39 acres is intrinsically connected to the disputed land and will be dependent on the outcome of the civil suit being fought over it — the Allahabad High Court judgement of 2010 had distributed the disputed 2.77 acres on which the Babri Masjid used to stand equally among three contesting parties. According to the Centre, this will enable it to “determine the exact extent of land required from out of the superfluous/ excess land to ensure that successful party in the disputed pending regarding the disputed land can have proper access to and enjoyment of rights in the disputed land.” The Centre's application further states that according to the Ismail Faruqi Judgement of the apex court, “The interest claimed by the Muslims was only over the disputed site of 0.313 acres where the disputed structure stood before its demolition” while the other land acquired by the government under the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act 1993 “is such over which no title is claimed by the Muslims.” The Supreme Court had last week formed a constitution bench to hear the title dispute case which will look into the pleas challenging the 2010 Allahabad Hugh court verdict.

Ayodhya dispute: Centre moves Supreme Court, seeks permission to return acquired land to Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas

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

CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday reacted over the political turmoil in Ayodhya over Ram temple construction stating that the Constitution, law and order are being subverted in the name of faith.&nbsp;

The senior leader went on to add that, "communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank," news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

"This is worst vote bank politics that the country has seen," Yechury noted at the party's state conference in Tripura.

He said that the government must "take adequate precautions to ensure the situation doesn’t develop like in 1992 when darkest blotch in modern India's democracy was the demolition of Babri Masjid."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Clearly what's being done is in the run-up to 2019 election,communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank.This is worst vote bank politics that country has seen:CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury at the party's state conference in Tripura.(25.11) <a href="https://t.co/j9CLJJ3I6Z">pic.twitter.com/j9CLJJ3I6Z</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1066830385525477376?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 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>

The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, Ayodhya, turned into a virtual fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple.

Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray has been urging the government to bring legislation or an ordinance for building the temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya, but he has not linked his own two-day visit to VHP event.

Thackeray said his party will support any legislation or ordinance for the Ram Mandir, which Hindutva organisations want to be constructed at the site where the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992.

CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday reacted over the political turmoil in Ayodhya over Ram temple construction stating that the Constitution, law and order are being subverted in the name of faith.

CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday reacted over the political turmoil in Ayodhya over Ram temple construction stating that the Constitution, law and order are being subverted in the name of faith. The senior leader went on to add that, "communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank," news agency ANI reported. "This is worst vote bank politics that the country has seen," Yechury noted at the party's state conference in Tripura. He said that the government must "take adequate precautions to ensure the situation doesn’t develop like in 1992 when darkest blotch in modern India's democracy was the demolition of Babri Masjid." Clearly what's being done is in the run-up to 2019 election,communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank.This is worst vote bank politics that country has seen:CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury at the party's state conference in Tripura.(25.11) pic.twitter.com/j9CLJJ3I6Z — ANI (@ANI) November 25, 2018 × The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, Ayodhya, turned into a virtual fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple. Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray has been urging the government to bring legislation or an ordinance for building the temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya, but he has not linked his own two-day visit to VHP event. Thackeray said his party will support any legislation or ordinance for the Ram Mandir, which Hindutva organisations want to be constructed at the site where the Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992.

This is worst vote bank politics country has seen: Sitaram Yechury on Ram temple row

Uttar Pradesh&nbsp;Additional Director General (law and order), Anand Kumar, briefed media over the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-on-edge-as-thousands-gather-for-vhps-ram-temple-push-179294">situation in Ayodhya</a> today, adding that an alert was received by the Intelligence Bureau a few days back of a possible attack, news agency ANI reported.

He stated that the alert received was non-specific and that the department has taken a required action. &nbsp;

"People from intelligence agencies under state government and centre have been deployed there and are monitoring the situation," he added.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
We received alert by IB (Intelligence Bureau) a few days back, it was a non-specific alert. Action is being take. People from intelligence agencies under state govt&amp;centre have been deployed there&amp;are monitoring the situation: ADG(law&amp;order) on input by IB of an attack in Ayodhya <a href="https://t.co/kWHOHYlZEG">pic.twitter.com/kWHOHYlZEG</a>
— ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/1066611642664984576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 25, 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>

The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-on-edge-as-thousands-gather-for-vhps-ram-temple-push-179294">Ayodhya, is turned into a virtual fortress</a> with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving here for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', being organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple.

Over 200,000 people are expected near the site where a Hindu mob in 1992 pulled down the 16th-century mosque, sparking deadly religious riots that killed some 2,000 people in one of India's worst communal violence since the partition in 1947.

More than 900 extra police and a large number of paramilitary, including elite commandos, have been stationed at Ayodhya, said Vivek Tripathi, spokesman for the Uttar Pradesh police. "We're monitoring the entire town by CCTV and drone cameras," Tripathi said.

We’ve made all the arrangements for the programme (VHP’s dharma sansad). We’ve allotted spaces for parking, bypass is running smoothly &amp; we’ll ensure it stays like that. ‘Darshan’ will be from the usual routes. We’ll do everything in an organized way: DIG Ayodhya, Omkar Singh stated.&nbsp;

Uttar Pradesh Additional Director General (law and order), Anand Kumar, briefed media over the situation in Ayodhya today, adding that an alert was received by the Intelligence Bureau a few days back of a possible attack, news agency ANI reported.

Uttar Pradesh Additional Director General (law and order), Anand Kumar, briefed media over the situation in Ayodhya today, adding that an alert was received by the Intelligence Bureau a few days back of a possible attack, news agency ANI reported. He stated that the alert received was non-specific and that the department has taken a required action. "People from intelligence agencies under state government and centre have been deployed there and are monitoring the situation," he added. We received alert by IB (Intelligence Bureau) a few days back, it was a non-specific alert. Action is being take. People from intelligence agencies under state govt&centre have been deployed there&are monitoring the situation: ADG(law&order) on input by IB of an attack in Ayodhya pic.twitter.com/kWHOHYlZEG — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) November 25, 2018 × The holy city of Uttar Pradesh, Ayodhya, is turned into a virtual fortress with multiple layers of security and deployment of drones as people began arriving here for Sunday's 'Dharam Sabha', being organised by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to push for the construction of the Ram temple. Over 200,000 people are expected near the site where a Hindu mob in 1992 pulled down the 16th-century mosque, sparking deadly religious riots that killed some 2,000 people in one of India's worst communal violence since the partition in 1947. More than 900 extra police and a large number of paramilitary, including elite commandos, have been stationed at Ayodhya, said Vivek Tripathi, spokesman for the Uttar Pradesh police. "We're monitoring the entire town by CCTV and drone cameras," Tripathi said. We’ve made all the arrangements for the programme (VHP’s dharma sansad). We’ve allotted spaces for parking, bypass is running smoothly & we’ll ensure it stays like that. ‘Darshan’ will be from the usual routes. We’ll do everything in an organized way: DIG Ayodhya, Omkar Singh stated.

Received alert from IB of possible attack in Ayodhya: Uttar Pradesh ADG 

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

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 is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph would hear the appeals filed in the matter.

On 27 September, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict.

However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration.

The court had on 27 September said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on 29 October.

The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict.

The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.

The Supreme Court is likely to hear Monday a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts. A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph would hear the appeals filed in the matter. On 27 September, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute. In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue. Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict. However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration. The court had on 27 September said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on 29 October. The issue of whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict. The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute: SC to hear pleas challenging HC verdict today

The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will take a decision on referring the Ayodhya land dispute case to a&nbsp;larger bench after hearing all parties to the litigation.&nbsp;

The top court's remarks came in response to a plea by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was appearing for a Muslim party, &nbsp;to refer the Ayodhya case to its larger bench, stating the issue was far more important than that of polygamy among Muslims, which has been referred to a Constitution bench.

"The Ayodhya land dispute is far more important than polygamy among Muslims and the whole nation wants an answer," Rajeev Dhavan told the bench.

The plea was made before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra.

The Supreme Court fixed April 27 as the next date of hearing in the case.

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.

The top court had earlier dashed the hopes of activists like Shyam Benegal and Teesta Setalvad to intervene in the sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case, making it clear that only the parties to the original lawsuits would be allowed to put forth their arguments.

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.

The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will take a decision on referring the Ayodhya land dispute case to a larger bench after hearing all parties to the litigation

The Supreme Court said on Friday that it will take a decision on referring the Ayodhya land dispute case to a larger bench after hearing all parties to the litigation. The top court's remarks came in response to a plea by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was appearing for a Muslim party, to refer the Ayodhya case to its larger bench, stating the issue was far more important than that of polygamy among Muslims, which has been referred to a Constitution bench. "The Ayodhya land dispute is far more important than polygamy among Muslims and the whole nation wants an answer," Rajeev Dhavan told the bench. The plea was made before a bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The Supreme Court fixed April 27 as the next date of hearing in the case. 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. The top court had earlier dashed the hopes of activists like Shyam Benegal and Teesta Setalvad to intervene in the sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case, making it clear that only the parties to the original lawsuits would be allowed to put forth their arguments. 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 dispute more important than polygamy: Muslim party to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed April 6 as the date for further hearings in the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case.

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. 
 
A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had earlier directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The top court 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 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.

(With inputs from ANI)

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 site in Ayodhya

The Supreme Court on Friday fixed April 6 as the date for further hearings in the ongoing Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case. 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. A bench, comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, had earlier directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The top court 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 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. (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya dispute: Supreme Court sets April 6 as date of hearing

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide if the Babri mosque is indeed an integral part of Islam. The court&#39;s comments came during a hearing on the Ayodhya case where senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board - one of the parties in the case - cited a previous judgement of a constitutional bench which said the mosque is not an integral part of Islam.

The court&#39;s decision will determine whether Muslims can continue holding prayers at the site where mosque once stood. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra also refused to send the case to a five-member Constitution Bench as demanded by the Muslim organisations. The next hearing will take place on March 23.

At the hearing today, the Supreme Court also dismissed all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri Mosque-Ram temple land dispute case.

A special bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Najeeb accepted the contention that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to advance arguments in the case and the intervention applications of unrelated persons seeking impledment as parties be rejected.

This means that the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Shri Ram Lala Virajman are the only parties.

The apex court also rejected the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking to intervene in the ongoing matter.

The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy&#39;s disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya.

&quot;I had filed a writ petition saying that I have a fundamental right to worship and this is a superior right than property right,&quot; Swamy said.

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.

The court however revived Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at the disputed site

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it will decide if the Babri mosque is indeed an integral part of Islam. The court's comments came during a hearing on the Ayodhya case where senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board - one of the parties in the case - cited a previous judgement of a constitutional bench which said the mosque is not an integral part of Islam. The court's decision will determine whether Muslims can continue holding prayers at the site where mosque once stood. The three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra also refused to send the case to a five-member Constitution Bench as demanded by the Muslim organisations. The next hearing will take place on March 23. At the hearing today, the Supreme Court also dismissed all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri Mosque-Ram temple land dispute case. A special bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Najeeb accepted the contention that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to advance arguments in the case and the intervention applications of unrelated persons seeking impledment as parties be rejected. This means that the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Shri Ram Lala Virajman are the only parties. The apex court also rejected the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking to intervene in the ongoing matter. The court, however, ordered revival of Swamy's disposed of writ petition in which he had sought enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at Ram temple on the disputed site in Ayodhya. "I had filed a writ petition saying that I have a fundamental right to worship and this is a superior right than property right," Swamy said. 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 row: Supreme Court to decide if mosque is an integral part of Islam

ayodhya-dispute

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

ayodhya dispute