The Supreme Court will take up the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case along with public interest litigation (PIL) questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter on Friday.

On December 24, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had decided on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench."

On the same day, Union Minister Prakash Javadekar said that the central government wants the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit to be heard on day to day basis in the court.

In an interview to ANI on earlier this week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said that any decision on bringing an ordinance on Ram temple construction can be considered only after the end of the judicial process.

He had also suggested that the judicial process was being slowed down because Congress lawyers were creating "obstacles" in the Supreme Court.

"We have said in our BJP manifesto that a solution would be found to this issue under the ambit of the Constitution," the Prime Minister said when asked whether the Ram Mandir issue had been relegated as merely an emotive issue for the BJP.

On November 12, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea seeking an early hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit.

Meanwhile, an advocate, Harinath Ram, filed a PIL in the top court, requesting it to hear the matter on an urgent basis and in a time-bound manner.

The petitioner stated that the apex court should understand the sentiments of millions of Hindus in India, as their emotions are "inextricably attached to the identity of Lord Ram."

The advocate further stated that the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid matter has been pending for the last several decades, but has not seen the light of the day "even when the country boasts of having functional and effective justice delivery system."In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the disputed land in Ayodhya into three parts for each of the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.&nbsp;

On December 24, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had decided on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench."

The Supreme Court will take up the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case along with public interest litigation (PIL) questioning delay in the adjudication of the matter on Friday. On December 24, a Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had decided on "fixing the date of hearing before the appropriate bench." On the same day, Union Minister Prakash Javadekar said that the central government wants the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit to be heard on day to day basis in the court. In an interview to ANI on earlier this week, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said that any decision on bringing an ordinance on Ram temple construction can be considered only after the end of the judicial process. He had also suggested that the judicial process was being slowed down because Congress lawyers were creating "obstacles" in the Supreme Court. "We have said in our BJP manifesto that a solution would be found to this issue under the ambit of the Constitution," the Prime Minister said when asked whether the Ram Mandir issue had been relegated as merely an emotive issue for the BJP. On November 12, the Supreme Court had rejected a plea seeking an early hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit. Meanwhile, an advocate, Harinath Ram, filed a PIL in the top court, requesting it to hear the matter on an urgent basis and in a time-bound manner. The petitioner stated that the apex court should understand the sentiments of millions of Hindus in India, as their emotions are "inextricably attached to the identity of Lord Ram." The advocate further stated that the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid matter has been pending for the last several decades, but has not seen the light of the day "even when the country boasts of having functional and effective justice delivery system."In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the disputed land in Ayodhya into three parts for each of the parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Supreme Court to hear Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case today

The Supreme Court on Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case at Ayodhya.

During the last hearing on October 29, the apex court had turned down the appeals filed by around 14 petitioners against&nbsp;Allahabad high court's 2010 judgement which divided the land into three equal parts to the Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of Uttar Pradesh - the three parties in the case.

In a hearing led by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, the court had also dismissed the requests for early hearing in the title dispute case and concluded, "We have our own priorities. Whether hearing would take place in January, March or April would be decided by an appropriate bench".

The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open".

The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years.&nbsp;

The Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has gained momentum in recent years. The issue is likely to play an important role in determining the votes of a particular community in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

While the Bharatiya Janata Party has time and again assured the construction of the temple, the issue will likely not get a concrete layout before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

In a recent interview, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has clarified that his government will not take any step in building the temple until the court pronounces its judgement.

“Let the judicial process take its own course. Don't weigh it in political terms. Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as a government, we are ready to make all efforts,” PTI reported PM Modi as saying.

Prime Minister’s comments have come at a time when the other Hindutva organisations were demanding for an ordinance for the early building of the Ram Temple.

The Bharatiya Janata Party rose to prominence in the 1990s after it exhibited active support for the construction of the Ram Temple. In the elections that followed, the party garnered huge support and votes from the core Hindu voters. &nbsp;However, even after nearly a decade, the party has not been able to deliver its promise to its voters.

Over the years the land dispute case has become one of the most debated issues in the country leading to escalated tensions in the political environment. The demolition of the mosque had resulted in severe riots in the country killing over 2,000 people.&nbsp;

Here is the series of events that led to the land dispute case in the country:

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 the 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 a 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 High Court 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 High Court challenging various aspects of the Act.

October 24, 1994: Supreme Court says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

April 2002: High Court begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.

March 13, 2003: Supreme Court says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.

March 14, 2003: Supreme Court says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad High Court to maintain communal harmony.

September 30, 2010: High Court, 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: Supreme Court stays High Court verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.

February 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in Supreme Court 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, 2017: Supreme Court constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.

August 8, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.

September 11, 2017: Supreme Court 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, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.

December 1, 2017: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court.

February 8, 2018: Supreme Court starts hearing the civil appeals.

March 14, 2018: Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.

April 6, 2018: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in Supreme Court to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.

July 6, 2018: UP government tells the Supreme Court some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of observation in the 1994 verdict.

July 20, 2018 : Supreme Court reserves verdict.

September 27, 2018: Supreme Court declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench.&nbsp;

October 29, 2018: &nbsp;Newly constituted three-judge bench turns down appeal filed by 14 petitioners challenging the 2010 court verdict. Court also schedules hearing for the first week of January.

The Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has gained momentum in recent years. The issue is likely to play an important role in determining the votes of a particular community in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

The Supreme Court on Friday said that an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case at Ayodhya. During the last hearing on October 29, the apex court had turned down the appeals filed by around 14 petitioners against Allahabad high court's 2010 judgement which divided the land into three equal parts to the Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Wakf Board of Uttar Pradesh - the three parties in the case. In a hearing led by the Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, the court had also dismissed the requests for early hearing in the title dispute case and concluded, "We have our own priorities. Whether hearing would take place in January, March or April would be decided by an appropriate bench". The court had earlier rejected the proposal for sending the title case for a larger bench and also refused to reconsider its 1994 verdict in which it had observed that a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open". The court had resumed the hearing in the case in 2017 after a break of around seven years. The Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has gained momentum in recent years. The issue is likely to play an important role in determining the votes of a particular community in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. While the Bharatiya Janata Party has time and again assured the construction of the temple, the issue will likely not get a concrete layout before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. In a recent interview, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has clarified that his government will not take any step in building the temple until the court pronounces its judgement. “Let the judicial process take its own course. Don't weigh it in political terms. Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as a government, we are ready to make all efforts,” PTI reported PM Modi as saying. Prime Minister’s comments have come at a time when the other Hindutva organisations were demanding for an ordinance for the early building of the Ram Temple. The Bharatiya Janata Party rose to prominence in the 1990s after it exhibited active support for the construction of the Ram Temple. In the elections that followed, the party garnered huge support and votes from the core Hindu voters. However, even after nearly a decade, the party has not been able to deliver its promise to its voters. Over the years the land dispute case has become one of the most debated issues in the country leading to escalated tensions in the political environment. The demolition of the mosque had resulted in severe riots in the country killing over 2,000 people. Here is the series of events that led to the land dispute case in the country: 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 the 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 a 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 High Court 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 High Court challenging various aspects of the Act. October 24, 1994: Supreme Court says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam. April 2002: High Court begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site. March 13, 2003: Supreme Court says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land. March 14, 2003: Supreme Court says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad High Court to maintain communal harmony. September 30, 2010: High Court, 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: Supreme Court stays High Court verdict on Ayodhya land dispute. February 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in Supreme Court 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, 2017: Supreme Court constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad High Court. August 8, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site. September 11, 2017: Supreme Court 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, 2017: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow. December 1, 2017: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court. February 8, 2018: Supreme Court starts hearing the civil appeals. March 14, 2018: Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case. April 6, 2018: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in Supreme Court to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench. July 6, 2018: UP government tells the Supreme Court some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of observation in the 1994 verdict. July 20, 2018 : Supreme Court reserves verdict. September 27, 2018: Supreme Court declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. October 29, 2018: Newly constituted three-judge bench turns down appeal filed by 14 petitioners challenging the 2010 court verdict. Court also schedules hearing for the first week of January.

Ayodhya land dispute case: A timeline

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

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

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

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

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy on Thursday asserted that there is nothing wrong with the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) observing the anniversary of demolition of Babri mosque, while adding that the same must be done peacefully.

Speaking to ANI on 26th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri mosque, Swamy said, "Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) has a right to observe the day as they have led the movement.

"Babri Masjid was an eyesore for everybody. After all, there was a temple and it is Ram Janamabhoomi. Babar comes here and his commander breaks the temple and builds a mosque on top of it. So many people have been protesting. Maybe 4000-5000 people have been killed. If VHP wants to observe the day, its fine but it should be peaceful."

The VHP will observe a `Shaurya Diwas` today, days after it organised a Dharam Sabha in Ayodhya on November 25 to seek support for construction of a grand Ram temple.

Also on December 18, the VHP will celebrate Gita Jayanti. This day marks the day Lord Krishna `revealed` Bhagavad Gita to Arjun (one of the Pandavas).

All this comes at a time when political parties and other organisations in favour of construction of Ram Temple have raised the pitch over the sensitive issue, demanding an early construction of the temple.

Notably, after the Supreme Court refused an early hearing, many outfits have urged the government to bring in an ordinance to facilitate construction of Ram temple at the site.

Thousands of security personnel have dotted the roads and bylanes of the holy city to avoid any untoward incident from taking place.

Reportedly, over 2,500 police personnel, besides Rapid Action Force and paramilitary CRPF, have been deployed as part of multi-layered security including in and around the disputed site and several parts of Hanumangarhi area of the temple town.

The Babri mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992 by `karsevaks`.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy on Thursday asserted that there is nothing wrong with the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) observing the anniversary of demolition of Babri mosque, while adding that the same must be done peacefully.

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy on Thursday asserted that there is nothing wrong with the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) observing the anniversary of demolition of Babri mosque, while adding that the same must be done peacefully. Speaking to ANI on 26th anniversary of the demolition of the Babri mosque, Swamy said, "Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) has a right to observe the day as they have led the movement. "Babri Masjid was an eyesore for everybody. After all, there was a temple and it is Ram Janamabhoomi. Babar comes here and his commander breaks the temple and builds a mosque on top of it. So many people have been protesting. Maybe 4000-5000 people have been killed. If VHP wants to observe the day, its fine but it should be peaceful." The VHP will observe a `Shaurya Diwas` today, days after it organised a Dharam Sabha in Ayodhya on November 25 to seek support for construction of a grand Ram temple. Also on December 18, the VHP will celebrate Gita Jayanti. This day marks the day Lord Krishna `revealed` Bhagavad Gita to Arjun (one of the Pandavas). All this comes at a time when political parties and other organisations in favour of construction of Ram Temple have raised the pitch over the sensitive issue, demanding an early construction of the temple. Notably, after the Supreme Court refused an early hearing, many outfits have urged the government to bring in an ordinance to facilitate construction of Ram temple at the site. Thousands of security personnel have dotted the roads and bylanes of the holy city to avoid any untoward incident from taking place. Reportedly, over 2,500 police personnel, besides Rapid Action Force and paramilitary CRPF, have been deployed as part of multi-layered security including in and around the disputed site and several parts of Hanumangarhi area of the temple town. The Babri mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992 by `karsevaks`.

Subramanian Swamy backs VHP observing Babri Demolition Anniversary

In the wake of the 26th anniversary of the demolition of Ayodhya Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh, the authorities have beefed up security in the region.

The security officials are conducting thorough checks at various public places such as cinema halls, railway stations, markets.

The forces deployed at the border of the temple town are also tracking the vehicles entering the holy city to avoid any illegal intrusion in Ayodhya.

According to media reports, the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) on Wednesday asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to maintain status quo at the disputed site in accordance with the Supreme Court order.

The BMAC has also requested the people to observe the day peacefully and hold special prayers for early resolution of the dispute.&nbsp;

"The anniversary should be observed peacefully as were done in the past. All memorandums addressed to the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister should be handed over to the district magistrate concerned, requesting them to maintain status quo at the demolition site as per the SC order," BMAC convener Zafaryab Jilani had stated.

The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was demolished on December 6, 1992 &nbsp;allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, who claimed that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple.

(With inputs from agencies)

In the wake of the 26th anniversary of the demolition of Ayodhya Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh, the authorities have beefed up security in the region. The security officials are conducting thorough checks at various public places such as cinema halls, railway stations, markets.

In the wake of the 26th anniversary of the demolition of Ayodhya Babri Masjid in Uttar Pradesh, the authorities have beefed up security in the region. The security officials are conducting thorough checks at various public places such as cinema halls, railway stations, markets. The forces deployed at the border of the temple town are also tracking the vehicles entering the holy city to avoid any illegal intrusion in Ayodhya. According to media reports, the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) on Wednesday asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to maintain status quo at the disputed site in accordance with the Supreme Court order. The BMAC has also requested the people to observe the day peacefully and hold special prayers for early resolution of the dispute. "The anniversary should be observed peacefully as were done in the past. All memorandums addressed to the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister should be handed over to the district magistrate concerned, requesting them to maintain status quo at the demolition site as per the SC order," BMAC convener Zafaryab Jilani had stated. The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal Emperor Babur in 1578 in Ayodhya was demolished on December 6, 1992 allegedly by a group of Hindu activists, who claimed that the mosque was constructed after demolishing a Ram temple. (With inputs from agencies)

Security beefed up in Ayodhya on 26th Babri Masjid demolition anniversary

BJP National General Secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya has said that his party was not thinking of bringing an ordinance "as of now" for construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

He, however, asserted that it was only the saffron party that could construct the Ram temple at Ayodhya as "no one else has the guts" to do it.

According to him, the temple issue did "more harm than good" to the BJP as the matter was being used by the opposition "to terrorise minorities and polarise votes".

"We would appeal to the court once again for a verdict on the issue (Ram Mandir). When a matter is in court, we should not be in a hurry and give it enough time to take a decision.

"But if people's aspirations keep increasing, the government will have to take a call on it (whether to bring ordinance or not). As of now, the party is not thinking of bringing in an ordinance on the construction of a temple," Vijayvargiya told PTI in an interview.

The Supreme Court has recently declined an early hearing of petitions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. It had earlier fixed the case for the first week of January before an "appropriate bench", which will decide the schedule of hearing.

When asked about the growing clamour for ordinance by various organisations and political outfits such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), RSS and Shiv Sena, he reiterated that they would have to appeal to the court for an early verdict.

Thousands of devotees thronged Ayodhya on November 25 to attend VHP's 'Dharam Sabha' to discuss the Ram Mandir issue, with a senior religious leader asserting the dates for building the temple would be announced early next year.

Last week, NDA-ally Shiv Sena's chief Uddhav Thackeray said the BJP government at the Centre "may not last" if the temple was not constructed in Ayodhya, warning that "emotions of Hindus should not be taken for granted".

Rubbishing opposition claims that the saffron party rakes up Ram Mandir issue for political benefits ahead of elections, Vijayvargiya said, "The BJP has not raised the matter, it was saints and other organisations that did. The party has never gone into polls with Ram Mandir issue. For us, the agenda has always been 'Sabka Sath Sabka Vikas'," he said.

He alleged that opposition parties have been trying to harm the party's prospects by intimidating minorities with the temple issue.

"During elections, some sections of people raise this issue just to terrorise minorities. The issue doesn't help the BJP, rather it causes damage as minorities en bloc vote against us," he claimed.

Vijayvargiya, who is the BJP in-charge of Bengal, said the saffron party would wish to build the temple, keeping the court's decision and Constitution's provisions in mind.

"Only BJP can construct the Ram Temple, nobody else has guts to construct the Ram temple. We will do it. But we will do it by respecting the court, Constitution and social fabric," he said.

Congress leader C P Joshi had recently said that only his party's prime minister would be able to build a temple at Ayodhya.

Talking about assembly polls in five states, he expressed confidence that BJP would score well in Telangana and form governments in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram.

When asked whether the election results in five states will have any impact on the Lok Sabha polls, he said state elections and parliamentary elections should not be mixed up as issues in two cases are very different.

"The issues in both polls will be completely different. When assembly elections take place, state leaders are making a pitch. In Lok Sabha polls, the party will pitch national leaders. When (Prime Minister) Narendra Modi will come into play, all other faces will take a backseat."

Vijayvargiya, however, acknowledged that victory in elections always act as a "morale booster".

"Yes it (poll results) will have some impact because winning polls act as morale booster, losing may demoralise workers a bit. But under the leadership of Modiji we would overcome all problems to form the next government again," Vijayvargiya, who hails from poll-bound Madhya Pradesh, said.

Rebutting opinion poll results which stated that the BJP might face a rout in three states in the Hindi heartland, the party's national general secretary said, "These predictions do not reveal people's aspirations, it is done on the basis of small samples that can't be a true reflection of what masses want".

He also claimed that opposition parties won't be able to unite as there were too many contenders for the prime minister's post.

"People want a stable and a strong government. The opposition front has too many prime ministerial aspirants and that won't work in their favour," he added.&nbsp;

BJP National General Secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya has said that his party was not thinking of bringing an ordinance "as of now" for construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya.

BJP National General Secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya has said that his party was not thinking of bringing an ordinance "as of now" for construction of the Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. He, however, asserted that it was only the saffron party that could construct the Ram temple at Ayodhya as "no one else has the guts" to do it. According to him, the temple issue did "more harm than good" to the BJP as the matter was being used by the opposition "to terrorise minorities and polarise votes". "We would appeal to the court once again for a verdict on the issue (Ram Mandir). When a matter is in court, we should not be in a hurry and give it enough time to take a decision. "But if people's aspirations keep increasing, the government will have to take a call on it (whether to bring ordinance or not). As of now, the party is not thinking of bringing in an ordinance on the construction of a temple," Vijayvargiya told PTI in an interview. The Supreme Court has recently declined an early hearing of petitions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. It had earlier fixed the case for the first week of January before an "appropriate bench", which will decide the schedule of hearing. When asked about the growing clamour for ordinance by various organisations and political outfits such as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), RSS and Shiv Sena, he reiterated that they would have to appeal to the court for an early verdict. Thousands of devotees thronged Ayodhya on November 25 to attend VHP's 'Dharam Sabha' to discuss the Ram Mandir issue, with a senior religious leader asserting the dates for building the temple would be announced early next year. Last week, NDA-ally Shiv Sena's chief Uddhav Thackeray said the BJP government at the Centre "may not last" if the temple was not constructed in Ayodhya, warning that "emotions of Hindus should not be taken for granted". Rubbishing opposition claims that the saffron party rakes up Ram Mandir issue for political benefits ahead of elections, Vijayvargiya said, "The BJP has not raised the matter, it was saints and other organisations that did. The party has never gone into polls with Ram Mandir issue. For us, the agenda has always been 'Sabka Sath Sabka Vikas'," he said. He alleged that opposition parties have been trying to harm the party's prospects by intimidating minorities with the temple issue. "During elections, some sections of people raise this issue just to terrorise minorities. The issue doesn't help the BJP, rather it causes damage as minorities en bloc vote against us," he claimed. Vijayvargiya, who is the BJP in-charge of Bengal, said the saffron party would wish to build the temple, keeping the court's decision and Constitution's provisions in mind. "Only BJP can construct the Ram Temple, nobody else has guts to construct the Ram temple. We will do it. But we will do it by respecting the court, Constitution and social fabric," he said. Congress leader C P Joshi had recently said that only his party's prime minister would be able to build a temple at Ayodhya. Talking about assembly polls in five states, he expressed confidence that BJP would score well in Telangana and form governments in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram. When asked whether the election results in five states will have any impact on the Lok Sabha polls, he said state elections and parliamentary elections should not be mixed up as issues in two cases are very different. "The issues in both polls will be completely different. When assembly elections take place, state leaders are making a pitch. In Lok Sabha polls, the party will pitch national leaders. When (Prime Minister) Narendra Modi will come into play, all other faces will take a backseat." Vijayvargiya, however, acknowledged that victory in elections always act as a "morale booster". "Yes it (poll results) will have some impact because winning polls act as morale booster, losing may demoralise workers a bit. But under the leadership of Modiji we would overcome all problems to form the next government again," Vijayvargiya, who hails from poll-bound Madhya Pradesh, said. Rebutting opinion poll results which stated that the BJP might face a rout in three states in the Hindi heartland, the party's national general secretary said, "These predictions do not reveal people's aspirations, it is done on the basis of small samples that can't be a true reflection of what masses want". He also claimed that opposition parties won't be able to unite as there were too many contenders for the prime minister's post. "People want a stable and a strong government. The opposition front has too many prime ministerial aspirants and that won't work in their favour," he added.

BJP not thinking of Ram Mandir ordinance as of now: Vijayvargiya

Union Minister for Drinking Water and Sanitation, Uma Bharti, on Sunday said that she appreciates Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray's effort to push for Ram temple construction.&nbsp;

The minister appealed to all, including various political parties and leaders, to "come forward and support the construction of the temple."

"Yes, I appreciate Uddhav Thackeray for his effort. BJP doesn't have a patent on Ram Mandir, Lord Ram is of all. I appeal to everyone including SP, BSP, Akali Dal, Owaisi, Azam Khan etc to come forward and support the construction of the temple," Bharti noted.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Yes, I appreciate <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UddhavThackeray?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UddhavThackeray</a> for his effort. BJP doesn't have a patent on Ram Mandir, Lord Ram is of all. I appeal to everyone including SP, BSP, Akali Dal, Owaisi, Azam Khan etc to come forward and support the construction of the temple: Uma Bharti, Union Minister (25.11) <a href="https://t.co/LQcpPafdBR">pic.twitter.com/LQcpPafdBR</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1066900477781131264?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 26, 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>

Meanwhile, CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday said that the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/this-is-worst-vote-bank-politics-country-has-seen-sitaram-yechury-on-ayodhya-dispute-179420">Constitution, law and order are being subverted in the name of faith</a>.

The senior leader went on to add that, "communal polarization is being sharpened to consolidate Hindutva communal vote bank," news agency ANI reported.&nbsp;

<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>

"This is worst vote bank politics that the country has seen," Yechury noted at the party's state conference in Tripura.&nbsp;

Union Minister for Drinking Water and Sanitation, Uma Bharti, on Sunday said that she appreciates Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray's effort to push for Ram temple construction.

Union Minister for Drinking Water and Sanitation, Uma Bharti, on Sunday said that she appreciates Shiv Sena chief Uddhav Thackeray's effort to push for Ram temple construction. The minister appealed to all, including various political parties and leaders, to "come forward and support the construction of the temple." "Yes, I appreciate Uddhav Thackeray for his effort. BJP doesn't have a patent on Ram Mandir, Lord Ram is of all. I appeal to everyone including SP, BSP, Akali Dal, Owaisi, Azam Khan etc to come forward and support the construction of the temple," Bharti noted. Yes, I appreciate #UddhavThackeray for his effort. BJP doesn't have a patent on Ram Mandir, Lord Ram is of all. I appeal to everyone including SP, BSP, Akali Dal, Owaisi, Azam Khan etc to come forward and support the construction of the temple: Uma Bharti, Union Minister (25.11) pic.twitter.com/LQcpPafdBR — ANI (@ANI) November 26, 2018 × Meanwhile, CPI(M) secretary general Sitaram Yechury on Sunday said 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. 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 × "This is worst vote bank politics that the country has seen," Yechury noted at the party's state conference in Tripura.

I appreciate Uddhav Thackeray for effort on Ram temple: Uma Bharti 

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 

The Supreme Court Monday 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 said it had already listed the appeals before the appropriate bench in January.

"We have already passed the order. The appeals are coming up in January. Permission declined," the bench said while rejecting the request of early hearing of lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha, appearing for the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.

The top court had earlier fixed the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for the first week of January before an "appropriate bench", which will decide the schedule of hearing.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the UP government and deity Ramlala respectively, had sought early listing of the appeals in the case after referring to their long pendency.

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.

The apex court bench headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had said that the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence.

It had also said that the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

As many as 14 appeals have been filed against the high court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The Supreme Court Monday 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 said it had already listed the appeals before the appropriate bench in January.

The Supreme Court Monday 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 said it had already listed the appeals before the appropriate bench in January. "We have already passed the order. The appeals are coming up in January. Permission declined," the bench said while rejecting the request of early hearing of lawyer Barun Kumar Sinha, appearing for the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha. The top court had earlier fixed the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for the first week of January before an "appropriate bench", which will decide the schedule of hearing. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for the UP government and deity Ramlala respectively, had sought early listing of the appeals in the case after referring to their long pendency. 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. The apex court bench headed by the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had said that the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence. It had also said that the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue. As many as 14 appeals have been filed against the high court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Supreme Court declines early hearing of pleas in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case

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

The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-is-ayodhya-case-related-to-2019-elections-pm-modi-asks-kapil-sibal-26043?amp">Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute</a> case till January 2019.

The decision on a daily basis in the case will be taken in January, the apex court's hearing said.&nbsp;

The court has however not given any final date for the hearing or the bench.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Supreme Court adjourns the matter till January 2019 to fix the date of hearing in <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a> title suit <a href="https://t.co/wZxixh9RVz">https://t.co/wZxixh9RVz</a>
— ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/1056794584045572096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 29, 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 Supreme Court's decision pertains to a&nbsp;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 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 issue of whether a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/mosque-can-be-built-at-distance-from-disputed-babri-masjid-site-shia-waqf-board-to-top-court-18715?amp">mosque is integral to Islam</a> had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict.

On September 27, 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.

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.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute case till January 2019. The decision on a daily basis in the case will be taken in January, the apex court's hearing said.

The Supreme Court has adjourned the hearing in the Ayodhya-Babri Masjid dispute case till January 2019. The decision on a daily basis in the case will be taken in January, the apex court's hearing said. The court has however not given any final date for the hearing or the bench. Supreme Court adjourns the matter till January 2019 to fix the date of hearing in #Ayodhya title suit https://t.co/wZxixh9RVz — ANI (@ANI) October 29, 2018 × The Supreme Court's decision pertains to 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 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 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. On September 27, 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. 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. (With inputs from agencies)

Babri Masjid dispute: Supreme court adjourns hearing till January

Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the Ayodhya land dispute case today, Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister Mohsin Raza, Muslim cleric Maulana Sufiyan and Zafaryab Jilani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) have expressed faith in the top court and said that they will abide by its order.

The court will hear 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 will hear the appeals filed in the matter.

“Chief Justice constitutes the bench and he also fixes the dates for the hearing. We don’t know what will be the observation of the Chief Justice. Whether the bench will be changed or it will be the same. We cannot say what will be the fate of the case. It is already proceeding in the Supreme Court. The court will handle the case in its own way. The court cannot be influenced by public statements or any person. Proceedings need not be governed by the statements of the leaders,” said Jilani, who is also the convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC).

On September 27, 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.

Mohsin Raza told ANI, “We expect that the decision will be taken soon. I expect a favourable decision. We will welcome whatever the court will decide, especially for people who have faith in Lord Ram. This is a matter of faith. People have been waiting for it since decades.”

Expressing similar sentiments, Bharatiya Janata Party’s Vinay Katiyar told ANI, “We are very hopeful. Ram Janmabhoomi is ours. We are not fighting over Temple. We are fighting the battle of Ram Janmabhoomi. People who think this is a fight between Temple and Masjid are wrong.”

Meanwhile, Maulana Sufiyan has advised that the Supreme Court should “consider all the facts and evidence” and both the parties due time. &nbsp;

“Muslims have already said that they will only consider the decision of the apex court. The decision will come for sure. There is no need to rush. We have already waited long enough, and whatever the decision may be, should be accepted by all.”

Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the Ayodhya land dispute case today, Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister Mohsin Raza, Muslim cleric Maulana Sufiyan and Zafaryab Jilani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) have expressed faith in the top court and said that they will abide by its order.

Ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on the Ayodhya land dispute case today, Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister Mohsin Raza, Muslim cleric Maulana Sufiyan and Zafaryab Jilani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) have expressed faith in the top court and said that they will abide by its order. The court will hear 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 will hear the appeals filed in the matter. “Chief Justice constitutes the bench and he also fixes the dates for the hearing. We don’t know what will be the observation of the Chief Justice. Whether the bench will be changed or it will be the same. We cannot say what will be the fate of the case. It is already proceeding in the Supreme Court. The court will handle the case in its own way. The court cannot be influenced by public statements or any person. Proceedings need not be governed by the statements of the leaders,” said Jilani, who is also the convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC). On September 27, 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. Mohsin Raza told ANI, “We expect that the decision will be taken soon. I expect a favourable decision. We will welcome whatever the court will decide, especially for people who have faith in Lord Ram. This is a matter of faith. People have been waiting for it since decades.” Expressing similar sentiments, Bharatiya Janata Party’s Vinay Katiyar told ANI, “We are very hopeful. Ram Janmabhoomi is ours. We are not fighting over Temple. We are fighting the battle of Ram Janmabhoomi. People who think this is a fight between Temple and Masjid are wrong.” Meanwhile, Maulana Sufiyan has advised that the Supreme Court should “consider all the facts and evidence” and both the parties due time. “Muslims have already said that they will only consider the decision of the apex court. The decision will come for sure. There is no need to rush. We have already waited long enough, and whatever the decision may be, should be accepted by all.”

Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute: Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging High Court verdict today

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.&nbsp;

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated&nbsp;that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The history of the dispute dates back to the 16th century, the mosque in question is believed to have been in existence since 1528 -- built in Ayodhya by the commander of Mughal emperor, Mir Baqi. On the other hand, the Archaeological Survey of India suggested the existence of a 10th-century temple at the site.&nbsp;

The case gained prominence again after mediation by Art of Living founder Ravi Shankar in 2017.&nbsp;

The Shia Waqf Board, last month, had proposed the formation of a Ram Mandir at the site in Ayodhya while the mosque can be formed in Lucknow.

Ahead of the Supreme Court's crucial verdict today, here's taking a quick look at the timeline of the events related to the dispute.&nbsp;

1800s: The first recorded clash over Ayodhya site took place in 1853. A fence was created by the Britishers for Hindus and Muslims to worship separately.&nbsp;

1949: The government declared the site a disputed area after a group of Hindus allegedly sneaked in Lord Ram idol in the mosque. Muslims stopped offering namaz. In the coming years, various Hindu organisations filed suits seeking exclusive rights to the site.&nbsp;

1961: Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqf sought a suit seeking the possession of Babri mosque site.

1980s: Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a campaign with an aim to re-open the site and build a grand Ram temple. The Bhartiya Janata Party also backed the movement later on.&nbsp;

1990: A Rath Yatra was launched by the then BJP President LK Advani for the cause of building a Ram Temple on the mosque site. The yatra stretched from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh.&nbsp;

The Yatra triggered riots across the country, Advani was arrested in Samastipur in Bihar. The BJP withdrew its support to the government leading to early parliamentary elections.

1992: Violent protests and communal riots broke out when a large group of people congregated at the site with an aim to demolish the mosque. A makeshift Ram Mandir was built, Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao vowed to rebuild the mosque.&nbsp;

2002: An Ayodhya Cell was set up by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to resolve the dispute. High Court began hearing the case to determine who owns the Ayodhya site the same year.&nbsp;

2003: The Archaeological Survey of India found evidence of a temple beneath the mosque site after carrying out excavations on the direction of the Allahabad High Court. Muslim bodies disputed the findings.

2010: Allahabad High Court pronounced a historic judgement ruling that the 2.77 acres of disputed Ayodhya land should be divided into 3 parts.&nbsp;

According to the verdict, one-third of the land was to be given to Ram Lalla, represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, one third was entrusted to the Nirmohi Akhara, the remaining one third was to be given to Islamic Sunni Waqf Board.

2017: The matter came into prominence again with the mediation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who called for an out-of-court solution. It was rejected by political parties and various religious boards.

In December Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the matter should be heard only after the completion of 2019 Lok Sabha elections. He told the Court that since the BJP has the issue of Ram Mandir in their election manifesto, the Bench must hear the matter only after July 2019. Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave also echoed Sibal’s arguments and sought leave to recuse themselves from the proceedings.

Court turned down the same. Listed the matter for February 8, 2018, for arguments.

2018: In August, the Shia Central Waqf Board offered a new proposal to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi conflict in Ayodhya – a Ram temple in Ayodhya, a mosque in Lucknow. The proposal has been rejected by several Muslim bodies.

In July, the court reserved verdict to a larger Bench.

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its landmark judgement today on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer will give its verdict on a batch of pleas by Muslim groups on title dispute seeking reconsideration of the 1994 verdict that stated that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The history of the dispute dates back to the 16th century, the mosque in question is believed to have been in existence since 1528 -- built in Ayodhya by the commander of Mughal emperor, Mir Baqi. On the other hand, the Archaeological Survey of India suggested the existence of a 10th-century temple at the site. The case gained prominence again after mediation by Art of Living founder Ravi Shankar in 2017. The Shia Waqf Board, last month, had proposed the formation of a Ram Mandir at the site in Ayodhya while the mosque can be formed in Lucknow. Ahead of the Supreme Court's crucial verdict today, here's taking a quick look at the timeline of the events related to the dispute. 1800s: The first recorded clash over Ayodhya site took place in 1853. A fence was created by the Britishers for Hindus and Muslims to worship separately. 1949: The government declared the site a disputed area after a group of Hindus allegedly sneaked in Lord Ram idol in the mosque. Muslims stopped offering namaz. In the coming years, various Hindu organisations filed suits seeking exclusive rights to the site. 1961: Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Waqf sought a suit seeking the possession of Babri mosque site. 1980s: Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a campaign with an aim to re-open the site and build a grand Ram temple. The Bhartiya Janata Party also backed the movement later on. 1990: A Rath Yatra was launched by the then BJP President LK Advani for the cause of building a Ram Temple on the mosque site. The yatra stretched from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. The Yatra triggered riots across the country, Advani was arrested in Samastipur in Bihar. The BJP withdrew its support to the government leading to early parliamentary elections. 1992: Violent protests and communal riots broke out when a large group of people congregated at the site with an aim to demolish the mosque. A makeshift Ram Mandir was built, Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao vowed to rebuild the mosque. 2002: An Ayodhya Cell was set up by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to resolve the dispute. High Court began hearing the case to determine who owns the Ayodhya site the same year. 2003: The Archaeological Survey of India found evidence of a temple beneath the mosque site after carrying out excavations on the direction of the Allahabad High Court. Muslim bodies disputed the findings. 2010: Allahabad High Court pronounced a historic judgement ruling that the 2.77 acres of disputed Ayodhya land should be divided into 3 parts. According to the verdict, one-third of the land was to be given to Ram Lalla, represented by the Hindu Maha Sabha, one third was entrusted to the Nirmohi Akhara, the remaining one third was to be given to Islamic Sunni Waqf Board. 2017: The matter came into prominence again with the mediation of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who called for an out-of-court solution. It was rejected by political parties and various religious boards. In December Senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that the matter should be heard only after the completion of 2019 Lok Sabha elections. He told the Court that since the BJP has the issue of Ram Mandir in their election manifesto, the Bench must hear the matter only after July 2019. Senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave also echoed Sibal’s arguments and sought leave to recuse themselves from the proceedings. Court turned down the same. Listed the matter for February 8, 2018, for arguments. 2018: In August, the Shia Central Waqf Board offered a new proposal to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi conflict in Ayodhya – a Ram temple in Ayodhya, a mosque in Lucknow. The proposal has been rejected by several Muslim bodies. In July, the court reserved verdict to a larger Bench.

SC verdict on Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir today: A timeline of key events 

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 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/world/mark-zuckerbergs-shine-dims-as-guardian-of-facebook-users-36795" target="_blank">Mark Zuckerberg&#39;s shine dims as guardian of Facebook users</a>

Mark Zuckerberg rose to wealth and fame with a mission of connecting everyone through Facebook, but now faces the wrath of users outraged he isn&#39;t doing more to defend their data.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/in-yet-another-shake-up-trump-replaces-nation-security-adviser-mcmaster-with-bolton-36782" target="_blank">In yet another shake-up of his foreign policy team, Trump replaces NSA McMaster with Bolton</a>

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump shook up his foreign policy team again on Thursday, replacing HR&nbsp;McMaster as national security adviser with John Bolton, a hawk who has advocated using military force against North Korea and Iran.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/breaking-the-aadhaar-encryption-may-take-more-than-the-age-of-the-universe-uidai-ceo-36798" target="_blank">Breaking Aadhaar encryption may take &#39;more than </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/breaking-the-aadhaar-encryption-may-take-more-than-the-age-of-the-universe-uidai-ceo-36798" target="_blank">age</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/breaking-the-aadhaar-encryption-may-take-more-than-the-age-of-the-universe-uidai-ceo-36798" target="_blank"> of universe&#39;: UIDAI CEO</a>

Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey on Thursday afternoon got a unique opportunity to make a PowerPoint presentation in the Supreme court to defend the government&#39;s ambitious Aadhaar scheme.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ram-janmabhoomi-case-supreme-court-to-continue-final-hearing-36785" target="_blank">Babri Masjid case: Supreme Court to continue &#39;final hearing&#39; today</a>

The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday. The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-strikes-back-in-trade-spat-aims-tariffs-at-3-billion-us-goods-36786" target="_blank">China strikes back in trade spat, aims tariffs at $3 billion US goods</a>

China unveiled plans on Friday to impose tariffs on up to $3 billion of US&nbsp;imports in retaliation against US&nbsp;tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium products, as the world&#39;s two largest economies stood on the brink of a trade war.

&nbsp;

Mark Zuckerberg's shine dims as guardian of Facebook users Mark Zuckerberg rose to wealth and fame with a mission of connecting everyone through Facebook, but now faces the wrath of users outraged he isn't doing more to defend their data. In yet another shake-up of his foreign policy team, Trump replaces NSA McMaster with Bolton US President Donald Trump shook up his foreign policy team again on Thursday, replacing HR McMaster as national security adviser with John Bolton, a hawk who has advocated using military force against North Korea and Iran. Breaking Aadhaar encryption may take 'more than age of universe': UIDAI CEO Unique Identification Authority of India CEO Ajay Bhushan Pandey on Thursday afternoon got a unique opportunity to make a PowerPoint presentation in the Supreme court to defend the government's ambitious Aadhaar scheme. Babri Masjid case: Supreme Court to continue 'final hearing' today The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday. The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits. China strikes back in trade spat, aims tariffs at $3 billion US goods China unveiled plans on Friday to impose tariffs on up to $3 billion of US imports in retaliation against US tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminium products, as the world's two largest economies stood on the brink of a trade war.

WION Morning News Brief, March 23, 2018

The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday.

The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

The petitions challenge the high court verdict that mandated a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre site in Ayodhya.

The court earlier dismissed all 32 intervention petitions, including applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen and Teesta Setalvad, in the dispute case.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case.

The Supreme Court also rejected the intervention plea of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy in the dispute, a century-old point of the tussle between Hindus and Muslims.

The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was on December 6, 1992, demolished by Hindu Karsevaks in Ayodhya, following which 2000 people were killed in massive riots in Uttar Pradesh.

The Hindus, however, claim that a Ram temple that originally stood there was demolished to construct the mosque.&nbsp;

The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits

The Supreme Court will continue to hear the final arguments in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi case on Friday. The court will hear 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits. The petitions challenge the high court verdict that mandated a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre site in Ayodhya. The court earlier dismissed all 32 intervention petitions, including applications of Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen and Teesta Setalvad, in the dispute case. A Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer had also directed the registry not to entertain any intervention application in the Ayodhya case. The Supreme Court also rejected the intervention plea of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Subramanian Swamy in the dispute, a century-old point of the tussle between Hindus and Muslims. The Babri Masjid, built by Mughal emperor Babur in Ayodhya in 1528, was on December 6, 1992, demolished by Hindu Karsevaks in Ayodhya, following which 2000 people were killed in massive riots in Uttar Pradesh. The Hindus, however, claim that a Ram temple that originally stood there was demolished to construct the mosque.

Babri Masjid case: Supreme Court to continue 'final hearing' today

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

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">Uttar Pradesh </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">bypolls</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/uttar-pradesh-bypolls-up-shocker-sp-wins-both-yogi-bastion-of-gorakhpur-and-phulpur-seat-35824" target="_blank">: UP shocker; SP wins both Yogi bastion of Gorakhpur and Phulpur seat</a>

The Samajwadi Party&#39;s Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel won the Phulpur Lok Sabha bypoll by 59,613 votes Wednesday evening. The BJP came in second.&nbsp;

In the Gorakhpur bypoll meanwhile, the SP&#39;s Praveen Kumar Nishad won by 21,881 votes

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-accept-the-verdict-of-the-people-yogi-after-deafeat-in-bypolls-35825" target="_blank">Watch: We accept people&#39;s verdict, says Yogi Adityanath after BJP&#39;s defeat in </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-accept-the-verdict-of-the-people-yogi-after-deafeat-in-bypolls-35825" target="_blank">bypolls</a>

Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has reacted after the shocking defeat of BJP on his home-turf Gorakhpur, and Phulpur &ndash; both seats previously represented by him and his deputy in Uttar Pradesh government Keshav Prasad Maurya respective

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">Bihar </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">bypolls</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/bihar-bypolls-rjd-wins-araria-lok-sabha-seat-jehanabad-assembly-seat-and-bjp-retains-bhabua-35816" target="_blank">: RJD wins Araria Lok Sabha seat and Jehanabad assembly seat while BJP retains Bhabua</a>

The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) on &nbsp;Wednesday won the Jehanabad assembly seat bypoll.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, BJP&#39;s Rinky Rani Pandey has won the Bhabhua Assembly seat in Bihar.&nbsp;

The result of the Araria Lok Sabha constituency is also out, RJD&#39;s Sarfaraz Alam has won the Araria Lok Sabha seat.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-rejects-all-interim-pleas-to-intervene-in-ayodhya-dispute-35810" target="_blank">Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas to intervene in Ayodhya dispute</a>

The Supreme Court today rejected all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri masjid- Ram temple land dispute case.

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.

&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/entertainment-former-wonder-woman-lynda-carter-says-she-was-sexually-harassed-35823" target="_blank">I was sexually harassed too, says Wonder Woman</a>

Former &quot;Wonder Woman&quot; superhero Lynda Carter who played the iconic character in the 1970s TV series revealed that she was sexually harassed during her career.&nbsp;

Uttar Pradesh bypolls: UP shocker; SP wins both Yogi bastion of Gorakhpur and Phulpur seat The Samajwadi Party's Nagendra Pratap Singh Patel won the Phulpur Lok Sabha bypoll by 59,613 votes Wednesday evening. The BJP came in second. In the Gorakhpur bypoll meanwhile, the SP's Praveen Kumar Nishad won by 21,881 votes Watch: We accept people's verdict, says Yogi Adityanath after BJP's defeat in bypolls Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath has reacted after the shocking defeat of BJP on his home-turf Gorakhpur, and Phulpur – both seats previously represented by him and his deputy in Uttar Pradesh government Keshav Prasad Maurya respective Bihar bypolls: RJD wins Araria Lok Sabha seat and Jehanabad assembly seat while BJP retains Bhabua The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) on Wednesday won the Jehanabad assembly seat bypoll. Meanwhile, BJP's Rinky Rani Pandey has won the Bhabhua Assembly seat in Bihar. The result of the Araria Lok Sabha constituency is also out, RJD's Sarfaraz Alam has won the Araria Lok Sabha seat. Supreme Court rejects all interim pleas to intervene in Ayodhya dispute The Supreme Court today rejected all interim pleas seeking to intervene as parties in the sensitive Babri masjid- Ram temple land dispute case. 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 was sexually harassed too, says Wonder Woman Former "Wonder Woman" superhero Lynda Carter who played the iconic character in the 1970s TV series revealed that she was sexually harassed during her career.

WION Evening News Brief, March 14, 2018

The other day, a former senior bureaucrat attached to the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, told a news channel that Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao had informed the Chief Minister about archaeological evidence of the pre-existence of a temple where the Babri mosque stood. This was roughly a fortnight before the disputed structure was demolished. The bureaucrat was referring to the findings of an archaeological exercise conducted just months before. A more detailed excavation was done in 2003 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Allahabad High Court&rsquo;s instructions.

Interestingly, both of these explorations had dug out evidence of a Hindu structure that once existed. The findings had set off a furious debate between the pro-temple organisations on the one hand and the pro-mosque lobby consisting of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) and Left-liberal historians on the other. Now, given that the Supreme Court has said that it would hear the matter as a title deed case and not delve into the faith aspect, the archaeological material could play a crucial role.

Indeed, even the Allahabad High Court, while going into matters of faith, had relied heavily on the ASI&rsquo;s 2003 findings. &nbsp;The High Court&rsquo;s order was subsequently stayed by the apex court, but the archaeological findings haven&rsquo;t gone anywhere. The fire may now be re-ignited.

The pro-mosque lobby has consistently questioned the credibility of the ASI&rsquo;s findings. The fact is that the ASI did the excavations in 2003 under the supervision of the court. The court had appointed a panel including two junior judges and three archaeologists to maintain a close vigil on the excavation. And yet, the findings were discredited merely because they indicated the existence of a Hindu structure. It must be remembered that the 2003 excavation was more elaborate than the one in the early 1990s because it was done post-demolition.

Many findings were noted, and the most significant one was that well before the mosque came to be constructed, there had been large-scale structures of non-residential type (religious in nature) right up to the present level of the disputed site. Some 50 pillar bases were excavated; walls were discovered; a circular shrine with a water chute towards the north, that is meant to drain out water after offering to the deity, was found. The High Court had asked the ASI to excavate to determine &ldquo;whether there was any temple or structure which was demolished and the mosque constructed on the disputed site&rdquo;. Left historians, perhaps, already apprehensive that the 1992 findings would be reinforced, strenuously objected on the ground that the court seemed to be giving &ldquo;tacit judicial recognition&rdquo; to the belief that a monument could be destroyed on grounds of its having been built over another religious structure.

As more and more material emerged through the excavations that pointed to the pre-existence of a temple &mdash; or at the very least a Hindu structure, Left historians and the pro-mosque lobby stepped up their opposition. What then was witnessed was a sequence of desperate arguments. They had to respond somehow after the ASI report concluded that the findings were &ldquo;indicative (of) remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India&rdquo;. In short, the mosque had not been constructed on vacant land and that the remains found belonged to Hindu structures.

The dilemma before the pro-mosque organisations was: What was now to be done in the face of such evidence gathered through an exercise closely supervised by the High Court? One Left historian, Irfan Habib, was quick off the mark. Even before the ASI had submitted its final report to the court, he alleged that the ASI appeared to be bent on &ldquo;finding what those in powers wish it to find &mdash; the remains of a temple&rdquo;. He then went on to make a bizarre claim: That another mosque had immediately existed where the Babri structure later came up. Undaunted by the outlandish claims, he suggested that the pillar bases and bricks (which were evidence of a Hindu structure) were &ldquo;easy to assemble&rdquo; and that the bricks could have been &ldquo;arranged by the ASI excavators to provide evidence&rdquo;. Having already made up his mind, it wasn&rsquo;t surprising that Habib dismissed the final report as an &ldquo;unprofessional document, full of gross omissions, one-sided presentations of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences&rdquo;.

There were other Left historians too who endorsed Habib&rsquo;s outrage. But the High Court did not share their prejudices, also because the excavations had been done under its supervision and there had been no reason for any objective evaluator to doubt the exercise&rsquo;s credibility.

Just one more instance should suffice to demonstrate the desperation of the Left historians and their patrons. The excavations had revealed details of the Ram Chabutara (the site of which the High Court eventually awarded to the pro-temple groups in its verdict). These historians had all along insisted that the Chabutara had been constructed soon after the 1857 revolt, quite ignoring the description of a Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who had visited the place between 1766 and 1771. The priest had written in detail about the structure, and his writings matched the earliest form of Ram Chabutara.

The Left academics&rsquo; strategy has been clear and consistent. First, deny the evidence. If that becomes difficult, explain it away as one that fits with anything but the pre-existence of a Hindu structure. When even that fails, blame the ASI team for &lsquo;planting&rsquo; evidence to bolster a &lsquo;pre-conceived&rsquo; agenda driven by the rulers of the day. As the apex court takes up the issue from March 14, we may see the resurgence of the same old stance.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

PM Narasimha Rao and CM Kalyan Singh were aware of archaeological evidence of the pre-existence of a temple where the Babri mosque stood.

The other day, a former senior bureaucrat attached to the then Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, told a news channel that Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao had informed the Chief Minister about archaeological evidence of the pre-existence of a temple where the Babri mosque stood. This was roughly a fortnight before the disputed structure was demolished. The bureaucrat was referring to the findings of an archaeological exercise conducted just months before. A more detailed excavation was done in 2003 by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) on the Allahabad High Court’s instructions. Interestingly, both of these explorations had dug out evidence of a Hindu structure that once existed. The findings had set off a furious debate between the pro-temple organisations on the one hand and the pro-mosque lobby consisting of the Babri Masjid Action Committee (BMAC) and Left-liberal historians on the other. Now, given that the Supreme Court has said that it would hear the matter as a title deed case and not delve into the faith aspect, the archaeological material could play a crucial role. Indeed, even the Allahabad High Court, while going into matters of faith, had relied heavily on the ASI’s 2003 findings. The High Court’s order was subsequently stayed by the apex court, but the archaeological findings haven’t gone anywhere. The fire may now be re-ignited. The pro-mosque lobby has consistently questioned the credibility of the ASI’s findings. The fact is that the ASI did the excavations in 2003 under the supervision of the court. The court had appointed a panel including two junior judges and three archaeologists to maintain a close vigil on the excavation. And yet, the findings were discredited merely because they indicated the existence of a Hindu structure. It must be remembered that the 2003 excavation was more elaborate than the one in the early 1990s because it was done post-demolition. Many findings were noted, and the most significant one was that well before the mosque came to be constructed, there had been large-scale structures of non-residential type (religious in nature) right up to the present level of the disputed site. Some 50 pillar bases were excavated; walls were discovered; a circular shrine with a water chute towards the north, that is meant to drain out water after offering to the deity, was found. The High Court had asked the ASI to excavate to determine “whether there was any temple or structure which was demolished and the mosque constructed on the disputed site”. Left historians, perhaps, already apprehensive that the 1992 findings would be reinforced, strenuously objected on the ground that the court seemed to be giving “tacit judicial recognition” to the belief that a monument could be destroyed on grounds of its having been built over another religious structure. As more and more material emerged through the excavations that pointed to the pre-existence of a temple — or at the very least a Hindu structure, Left historians and the pro-mosque lobby stepped up their opposition. What then was witnessed was a sequence of desperate arguments. They had to respond somehow after the ASI report concluded that the findings were “indicative (of) remains which are distinctive features found associated with the temples of north India”. In short, the mosque had not been constructed on vacant land and that the remains found belonged to Hindu structures. The dilemma before the pro-mosque organisations was: What was now to be done in the face of such evidence gathered through an exercise closely supervised by the High Court? One Left historian, Irfan Habib, was quick off the mark. Even before the ASI had submitted its final report to the court, he alleged that the ASI appeared to be bent on “finding what those in powers wish it to find — the remains of a temple”. He then went on to make a bizarre claim: That another mosque had immediately existed where the Babri structure later came up. Undaunted by the outlandish claims, he suggested that the pillar bases and bricks (which were evidence of a Hindu structure) were “easy to assemble” and that the bricks could have been “arranged by the ASI excavators to provide evidence”. Having already made up his mind, it wasn’t surprising that Habib dismissed the final report as an “unprofessional document, full of gross omissions, one-sided presentations of evidence, clear falsifications and motivated inferences”. There were other Left historians too who endorsed Habib’s outrage. But the High Court did not share their prejudices, also because the excavations had been done under its supervision and there had been no reason for any objective evaluator to doubt the exercise’s credibility. Just one more instance should suffice to demonstrate the desperation of the Left historians and their patrons. The excavations had revealed details of the Ram Chabutara (the site of which the High Court eventually awarded to the pro-temple groups in its verdict). These historians had all along insisted that the Chabutara had been constructed soon after the 1857 revolt, quite ignoring the description of a Jesuit priest Joseph Tieffenthaler, who had visited the place between 1766 and 1771. The priest had written in detail about the structure, and his writings matched the earliest form of Ram Chabutara. The Left academics’ strategy has been clear and consistent. First, deny the evidence. If that becomes difficult, explain it away as one that fits with anything but the pre-existence of a Hindu structure. When even that fails, blame the ASI team for ‘planting’ evidence to bolster a ‘pre-conceived’ agenda driven by the rulers of the day. As the apex court takes up the issue from March 14, we may see the resurgence of the same old stance. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What decides Babri Masjid's fate on March 14

The<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-will-remain-mosque-till-eternity-aimplb-32515"> All India Muslim Personal Law Board&rsquo;s (AIMPLB) </a>member on Sunday informed that the committee has decided to remove Moulana Salman Husaini Nadvi&rsquo;s from the board&nbsp;after he suggested shifting the site of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799">Babri mosque</a> from Ayodhya.

However, Nadvi has said that&nbsp;&quot;hardliners&quot; had hijacked the board, which forced him to distance himself from their &quot;official&quot; stance on the Ayodhya dispute, reports said.&nbsp;

He had suggested that the board should make the final decision and not leave it to the court as they could not come up with a verdict in 25 years.&nbsp;

Nadvi was expelled for going against the decision of the organisation, which today stated that its position on the issue of building a mosque in Ayodhya remains unchanged.

A committee was formed by the board to look into the matter. With the rift out in the open, the board had earlier hinted that Nadvi would be removed from the board.

&quot;Committee announced AIMPLB Board will continue with its old stand that Mosque cannot be gifted, sold or shifted. Because Salman Nadvi has gone against this unanimous stand, he has been expelled,&quot; AIMPLB member Qasim Ilyas said.

Earlier, talking to the media, Nadvi had threatened to remove AIMPLB chairman Zafayb Jilani from Sunni Waqf Board&rsquo;s lawyer.

Jilani, to this, said, &ldquo;He can do whatever he wants. We have been fighting since 1986, the time when he (Nadvi) was not included in the fight (Babri Masjid).&rdquo;

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar expressed surprise at the move on Twitter.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Maulana Salman Husaini Nadwi&rsquo;s expulsion from the AIMPLB comes as a surprise, as several members of the board have met with me &amp; expressed their commitment to foster amity amongst Hindus &amp; Muslims &amp; to peacefully resolve this issue.
&mdash; Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (@SriSri) <a href="https://twitter.com/SriSri/status/962629920131346432?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 11, 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">&times;</a></div>

On February 9, Maulana Salman Husaini Nadvi spoke to ANI about his meeting with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar where he extended support to the construction of Ram temple and said that their priority is to join hearts of people.

He also hinted at an out of court settlement by saying, &ldquo;The courts do not join people&rsquo;s heart as the verdict is always in favour of one and against the other.&rdquo;

Referring to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar&rsquo;s issue, Jilani said that they cannot give the mosque to anyone.

Nadvi, who teaches at the Islamic seminary Nadwatul Ulema or Nadwa Madrassa in Lucknow, has drawn flak from other senior members of the board who met at Hyderabad.

The Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is a century-old issue between Hindus and Muslims over a piece of land, which is claimed by the former to be the birthplace of Hindu Lord Ram and thus entitled for construction of a Ram Temple.

The<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/babri-masjid-demolition-case-cbi-court-frames-charges-against-advani-manohar-joshi-uma-bharti-16223"> Babri Masjid</a>, built in 1528-29 CE, was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which caused massive riots across the country.

The case is now pending in the Supreme Court.

On Thursday, the three-judge Supreme Court bench fixed March 14 as the next date of hearing in Ayodhya case as some of the documents and translations were yet to be filed before the apex court.

However, Nadvi has said that 'hardliners' had hijacked the board, which forced him to distance himself from their 'official' stance on the Ayodhya dispute, reports said

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s (AIMPLB) member on Sunday informed that the committee has decided to remove Moulana Salman Husaini Nadvi’s from the board after he suggested shifting the site of Babri mosque from Ayodhya. However, Nadvi has said that "hardliners" had hijacked the board, which forced him to distance himself from their "official" stance on the Ayodhya dispute, reports said. He had suggested that the board should make the final decision and not leave it to the court as they could not come up with a verdict in 25 years. Nadvi was expelled for going against the decision of the organisation, which today stated that its position on the issue of building a mosque in Ayodhya remains unchanged. A committee was formed by the board to look into the matter. With the rift out in the open, the board had earlier hinted that Nadvi would be removed from the board. "Committee announced AIMPLB Board will continue with its old stand that Mosque cannot be gifted, sold or shifted. Because Salman Nadvi has gone against this unanimous stand, he has been expelled," AIMPLB member Qasim Ilyas said. Earlier, talking to the media, Nadvi had threatened to remove AIMPLB chairman Zafayb Jilani from Sunni Waqf Board’s lawyer. Jilani, to this, said, “He can do whatever he wants. We have been fighting since 1986, the time when he (Nadvi) was not included in the fight (Babri Masjid).” Sri Sri Ravi Shankar expressed surprise at the move on Twitter. Maulana Salman Husaini Nadwi’s expulsion from the AIMPLB comes as a surprise, as several members of the board have met with me & expressed their commitment to foster amity amongst Hindus & Muslims & to peacefully resolve this issue. — Sri Sri Ravi Shankar (@SriSri) February 11, 2018 × On February 9, Maulana Salman Husaini Nadvi spoke to ANI about his meeting with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar where he extended support to the construction of Ram temple and said that their priority is to join hearts of people. He also hinted at an out of court settlement by saying, “The courts do not join people’s heart as the verdict is always in favour of one and against the other.” Referring to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar’s issue, Jilani said that they cannot give the mosque to anyone. Nadvi, who teaches at the Islamic seminary Nadwatul Ulema or Nadwa Madrassa in Lucknow, has drawn flak from other senior members of the board who met at Hyderabad. The Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute is a century-old issue between Hindus and Muslims over a piece of land, which is claimed by the former to be the birthplace of Hindu Lord Ram and thus entitled for construction of a Ram Temple. The Babri Masjid, built in 1528-29 CE, was demolished by Hindu Karsevaks on December 6, 1992 in Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, which caused massive riots across the country. The case is now pending in the Supreme Court. On Thursday, the three-judge Supreme Court bench fixed March 14 as the next date of hearing in Ayodhya case as some of the documents and translations were yet to be filed before the apex court.

Hardliners have hijacked board: Cleric expelled by AIMPLB after saying Babri Masjid site can be shifted

Judicial governance of India&rsquo;s 1.32 billion population entrusted to the hands of so few is an unprecedented challenge. The Supreme Court as the pater familias of the judicial family has contributed inventively and phenomenally while firmly entrenching the rule of law. The year 2017 was significant for the Supreme Court as it underwent three different changes in regimes. Chief Justice T. S. Thakur who demitted office on 3 January 2017 was succeeded by Chief Justice J. S. Khehar with a small tenure of eight months and then Chief Justice Dipak Mishra took the oath of office on 28th August 2017.&nbsp; The year saw some progressive verdicts, however, there had been some incidents which had cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial institution. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Verdict Restoring Public Trust

In a path-breaking judgment in the case Shayara Bano v. Union of India), the Supreme Court, by a majority of 3:2, set aside the archaic practice of &lsquo;talaq-e-biddat&rsquo; &ndash; triple talaq. The court held that this form of talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save the marriage.&nbsp;

This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well. The dissenting judges, however, regarded triple talaq as an inalienable part of Muslim personal law in India and opined that the practice does not contravene Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Progressive Verdict

A nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right. This historic verdict on the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India held privacy to be the constitutional core of human dignity which safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of one&#39;s life. Personal choices that govern our way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Verdicts with Political Ramifications&nbsp;

A seven-judge Constitutional Bench on the case of Abhiram Singh v. C. D. Commachen by a 4:3 majority) held that seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or community amounted to corrupt practice and election of a candidate who indulged in it can be set aside. The Bench was interpreting Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act with reference to a question &ldquo;Will a religious leader&rsquo;s appeal to his followers to vote for a particular political party amount to electoral malpractice&rdquo;. However, the Bench refused to revisit the Hindutva verdict (1995) which held that Hinduism is a way of life and not religion. The dissenting judges however held that such an interference by the court, prohibiting candidates from articulating issues affecting voters reduced democracy to an abstraction. &nbsp;

A verdict with massive political ramifications came when Supreme Court (State (through) CBI v. Shri Kalyan Singh &amp; Others) restored criminal conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders&rsquo; L K Advani, Uma Bharti, Murli Manohar Joshi and 13 other in Babri Masjid demolition case. The court allowed the appeal filed by the CBI and held that additional charges against Advani, Joshi and others be framed within four weeks.&nbsp;

Invoking its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench also transferred the pending separate trial in a Rae Bareilly Magistrate Court and clubbed it with criminal proceedings in the Lucknow CBI Court. The Bench directed the trial court to hold a day-to-day trial without any adjournment and pronounce judgment within two years.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Contentious Verdict&nbsp;

While convicting V. K. Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran in disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court tried to reinstate the confidence of people in the judiciary but came under unexpected indictments. It faced severe criticism when the Chief Justice erroneously intervened in a corruption case which involved a retired judge of the Orissa High Court in order to constitute a bench of his choice to hear the case. It turned out to be worst when a lawyer who was arguing the petition was escorted from the court, flanked by security, after verbally grumbling with the Chief Justice. The episode not only diluted the accomplishments of this year but also substantiated the dubious attitude of Supreme Court in dealing with corruption in the higher judiciary. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The year saw some progressive verdicts, however, there had been some incidents which had cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial institution in India.

Judicial governance of India’s 1.32 billion population entrusted to the hands of so few is an unprecedented challenge. The Supreme Court as the pater familias of the judicial family has contributed inventively and phenomenally while firmly entrenching the rule of law. The year 2017 was significant for the Supreme Court as it underwent three different changes in regimes. Chief Justice T. S. Thakur who demitted office on 3 January 2017 was succeeded by Chief Justice J. S. Khehar with a small tenure of eight months and then Chief Justice Dipak Mishra took the oath of office on 28th August 2017. The year saw some progressive verdicts, however, there had been some incidents which had cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial institution. Verdict Restoring Public Trust In a path-breaking judgment in the case Shayara Bano v. Union of India), the Supreme Court, by a majority of 3:2, set aside the archaic practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ – triple talaq. The court held that this form of talaq is manifestly arbitrary in the sense that the marital tie can be broken capriciously and whimsically by a Muslim man without any attempt at reconciliation so as to save the marriage. This form of Talaq must, therefore, be held to be violative of the fundamental right contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. What is held to be bad in the Holy Quran cannot be good in Shariat and, in that sense, what is bad in theology is bad in law as well. The dissenting judges, however, regarded triple talaq as an inalienable part of Muslim personal law in India and opined that the practice does not contravene Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. Progressive Verdict A nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the right to privacy as a fundamental right. This historic verdict on the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India held privacy to be the constitutional core of human dignity which safeguards individual autonomy and recognises the ability of the individual to control vital aspects of one's life. Personal choices that govern our way of life are intrinsic to privacy. Privacy protects heterogeneity and recognises the plurality and diversity of our culture. Verdicts with Political Ramifications A seven-judge Constitutional Bench on the case of Abhiram Singh v. C. D. Commachen by a 4:3 majority) held that seeking votes in the name of religion, caste or community amounted to corrupt practice and election of a candidate who indulged in it can be set aside. The Bench was interpreting Section 123(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act with reference to a question “Will a religious leader’s appeal to his followers to vote for a particular political party amount to electoral malpractice”. However, the Bench refused to revisit the Hindutva verdict (1995) which held that Hinduism is a way of life and not religion. The dissenting judges however held that such an interference by the court, prohibiting candidates from articulating issues affecting voters reduced democracy to an abstraction. A verdict with massive political ramifications came when Supreme Court (State (through) CBI v. Shri Kalyan Singh & Others) restored criminal conspiracy charges against senior BJP leaders’ L K Advani, Uma Bharti, Murli Manohar Joshi and 13 other in Babri Masjid demolition case. The court allowed the appeal filed by the CBI and held that additional charges against Advani, Joshi and others be framed within four weeks. Invoking its extraordinary constitutional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Bench also transferred the pending separate trial in a Rae Bareilly Magistrate Court and clubbed it with criminal proceedings in the Lucknow CBI Court. The Bench directed the trial court to hold a day-to-day trial without any adjournment and pronounce judgment within two years. Contentious Verdict While convicting V. K. Sasikala, Ilavarasi and Sudhakaran in disproportionate assets case, the Supreme Court tried to reinstate the confidence of people in the judiciary but came under unexpected indictments. It faced severe criticism when the Chief Justice erroneously intervened in a corruption case which involved a retired judge of the Orissa High Court in order to constitute a bench of his choice to hear the case. It turned out to be worst when a lawyer who was arguing the petition was escorted from the court, flanked by security, after verbally grumbling with the Chief Justice. The episode not only diluted the accomplishments of this year but also substantiated the dubious attitude of Supreme Court in dealing with corruption in the higher judiciary. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: What are the landmark moments of Indian judiciary in 2017?

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

On the&nbsp;25th anniversary of the infamous Babri Masjid demolition which stoked communal violence between Hindus and Muslims across India, Uttar Pradesh&#39;s Ayodhya has been put on alert Wednesday&nbsp;and additional security has been deployed to avoid any kind of untoward incident.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Security heightened in Ayodhya on the 25th anniversary of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BabriDemolition?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BabriDemolition</a> <a href="https://t.co/IyfctuiQpq">pic.twitter.com/IyfctuiQpq</a>
&mdash; ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/938268255138877441?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">
Posters seen in Meerut yesterday, ahead of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BabriDemolition?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#BabriDemolition</a>&#39;s 25th anniversary. Police say posters have been taken down &amp; one person behind the act has been identified. <a href="https://t.co/tNDC7F2iyI">pic.twitter.com/tNDC7F2iyI</a>
&mdash; ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANINewsUP/status/938308392669589507?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>

On December 6, 1992, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) organised a rally in Ayodhya involving over 1.5 lakh volunteers, known as &#39;kar sevaks&#39;. However, it soon turned violent, and the crowd overpowered the security forces before demolishing the 16th Century Babri Masjid.

The rally saw the presence of senior BHP leaders including LK Advani, Uma Bharti and Murli Manohar Joshi.

The VHP celebrates the demolition day as &#39;Shaurya Diwas&#39; and organises several events every year, claiming that a temple of Lord Ram temple originally stood there and was demolished to construct the mosque. 
&nbsp;

The demolition took place on December 6, 1992 and triggered riots all over the country

On the 25th anniversary of the infamous Babri Masjid demolition which stoked communal violence between Hindus and Muslims across India, Uttar Pradesh's Ayodhya has been put on alert Wednesday and additional security has been deployed to avoid any kind of untoward incident. Security heightened in Ayodhya on the 25th anniversary of #BabriDemolition pic.twitter.com/IyfctuiQpq — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) December 6, 2017 = × Posters seen in Meerut yesterday, ahead of #BabriDemolition's 25th anniversary. Police say posters have been taken down & one person behind the act has been identified. pic.twitter.com/tNDC7F2iyI — ANI UP (@ANINewsUP) December 6, 2017 × On December 6, 1992, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) organised a rally in Ayodhya involving over 1.5 lakh volunteers, known as 'kar sevaks'. However, it soon turned violent, and the crowd overpowered the security forces before demolishing the 16th Century Babri Masjid. The rally saw the presence of senior BHP leaders including LK Advani, Uma Bharti and Murli Manohar Joshi. The VHP celebrates the demolition day as 'Shaurya Diwas' and organises several events every year, claiming that a temple of Lord Ram temple originally stood there and was demolished to construct the mosque.

Babri Masjid demolition anniversary: Security beefed up in Ayodhya

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB)&nbsp;has cleared the air regarding Kapil Sibal&#39;s request to the Supreme Court.

Senior advocate <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-next-hearing-in-supreme-court-in-february-2018-25932" target="_blank">Kapil Sibal had asked the Supreme Court</a> yesterday to take up the Ayodhya matter on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete.&nbsp;

His request had drawn a lot of verbal attack&nbsp;from the opposition.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Even the Sunni Waqf Board represented by Haji Mehboob had disapproved Sibal&#39;s request to the Supreme Court for conducting the judgment after July 2019.

He 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;

Clearing the stance of Kapil Sibal, the AIMPLB has said that a stand was taken by the counsels representing Muslim Parties that it was not the right time to take up the matter for final hearing.&nbsp;The Law Board said the stand was taken on the instruction of their respective clients.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
During the course of arguments in SC, a stand was taken by the Counsels representing Muslim Parties, on instruction of their respective Clients, stating that it was not the right time to take up the matter for Final Hearing: All India Muslim Personal Law Board <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938390565342859266?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">
As the representative body, the Board endorses and confirms the said statement of the Counsels made in Court: All India Muslim Personal Law Board General Secretary <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ayodhya?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ayodhya</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938390700227379200?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">
Board clarifies that statements from leaders for constructing Ram Temple &amp; indicating dates/place etc are unfortunate. Condemn it as case is subjudice, expect political statements not to be made by parties,as we&#39;ve heard since yesterday in relation to the court proceedings:AIMPLB
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938391700711473152?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>

Following the clarification, Haji Mehboob, the Ayodhya case petitioner has also assented to the request of Kapil Sibal.

He said &quot;If Jilani saab&nbsp;is saying that what Kapil Sibal said yesterday was right, then I agree&nbsp;with him.&quot;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
If Jilani saab (Zafaryab Jilani,convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee) is saying that what Kapil Sibal said yesterday was right, then I agree with him. Don&#39;t want to say anything else: Haji Mehboob, Ayodhya case petitioner <a href="https://t.co/mDggyrqVEg">pic.twitter.com/mDggyrqVEg</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/938393503570128897?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>

After Sibal&#39;s&nbsp;request to the Supreme Court, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/how-is-ayodhya-case-related-to-2019-elections-pm-modi-asks-kapil-sibal-26043" target="_blank">leaders from the opposition</a> including PM Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Ravishankar Prasad, Sambit Patra and many other attacked Sibal and his party asking the party&#39;s stand on Temple issue.

Earlier, Haji Mehboob representing the Sunni Waqf Board had disapproved Sibal's request to the Supreme Court for conducting the judgment after July 2019

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has cleared the air regarding Kapil Sibal's request to the Supreme Court. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal had asked the Supreme Court yesterday to take up the Ayodhya matter on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete. His request had drawn a lot of verbal attack from the opposition. Even the Sunni Waqf Board represented by Haji Mehboob had disapproved Sibal's request to the Supreme Court for conducting the judgment after July 2019. He 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." Clearing the stance of Kapil Sibal, the AIMPLB has said that a stand was taken by the counsels representing Muslim Parties that it was not the right time to take up the matter for final hearing. The Law Board said the stand was taken on the instruction of their respective clients. During the course of arguments in SC, a stand was taken by the Counsels representing Muslim Parties, on instruction of their respective Clients, stating that it was not the right time to take up the matter for Final Hearing: All India Muslim Personal Law Board #Ayodhya — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × As the representative body, the Board endorses and confirms the said statement of the Counsels made in Court: All India Muslim Personal Law Board General Secretary #Ayodhya — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × Board clarifies that statements from leaders for constructing Ram Temple & indicating dates/place etc are unfortunate. Condemn it as case is subjudice, expect political statements not to be made by parties,as we've heard since yesterday in relation to the court proceedings:AIMPLB — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × Following the clarification, Haji Mehboob, the Ayodhya case petitioner has also assented to the request of Kapil Sibal. He said "If Jilani saab is saying that what Kapil Sibal said yesterday was right, then I agree with him." If Jilani saab (Zafaryab Jilani,convenor of the Babri Masjid Action Committee) is saying that what Kapil Sibal said yesterday was right, then I agree with him. Don't want to say anything else: Haji Mehboob, Ayodhya case petitioner pic.twitter.com/mDggyrqVEg — ANI (@ANI) December 6, 2017 × After Sibal's request to the Supreme Court, leaders from the opposition including PM Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, Ravishankar Prasad, Sambit Patra and many other attacked Sibal and his party asking the party's stand on Temple issue.

Ayodhya case: Sunni Waqf Board assents to Kapil Sibal's request to Supreme Court

The Supreme court has fixed the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/babri-masjid-ramjanmabhoomi-dispute-a-timeline-25799" target="_blank"> Ayodhya dispute matter</a> for further hearing on February 8, 2018.

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> has asked the Supreme Court&nbsp;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;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ayodhya Dispute: Kapil Sibal told SC that whenever this matter is heard,there are serious repercussions outside court and to preserve the decorum of law and order,and that he personally requests court to take this matter up on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937976294670663680?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>

Earlier during the proceeding in the Supreme Court, Sibal read out the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants in the Allahabad High Court.&nbsp;

He told the three-judge bench in the Supreme Court that all the pleadings were not complete.&nbsp;

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta who is representing the State of Uttar Pradesh negated the arguments presented by Kapil Sibal. He told the Supreme Court that all the related documents and requisite translation copies are on record.

Raising doubts over ASG Mehta, Sibal questioned how come more than 19,000 pages of documents can be filed in such short time.&nbsp;

Sibal told the Supreme Court that he and other petitioners have not been served relevant documents of pleadings.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, the petitioners who had filed their pleadings in Allahabad High Court, have asked the Supreme Court for a reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ayodhya dispute: Petitioners are pleading in SC for reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents, which were filed before the Allahabad High Court bench at Lucknow.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937983384004861952?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">
Good news is that the Supreme Court has taken the formula proposed by us on record: Wasim Rizvi,Shia Waqf Board Chairman on Ayodhya hearing <a href="https://t.co/tSVdBti2a3">pic.twitter.com/tSVdBti2a3</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937984538873012225?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>

Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels have also demanded for a larger bench of judges. They have demanded a bench of at least seven judges.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Ayodhya dispute: Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels want a larger bench of atleast 7 Judges to hear this matter.
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/937987471597379584?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>

(With inputs from ANI)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in?Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has asked the Supreme Court?to take up the matter on July 15, next year,?once all the pleadings are complete.

The Supreme court has fixed the Ayodhya dispute matter for further hearing on February 8, 2018. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal who is representing the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya Babri Masjid case has asked the Supreme Court 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. Ayodhya Dispute: Kapil Sibal told SC that whenever this matter is heard,there are serious repercussions outside court and to preserve the decorum of law and order,and that he personally requests court to take this matter up on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × Earlier during the proceeding in the Supreme Court, Sibal read out the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants in the Allahabad High Court. He told the three-judge bench in the Supreme Court that all the pleadings were not complete. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta who is representing the State of Uttar Pradesh negated the arguments presented by Kapil Sibal. He told the Supreme Court that all the related documents and requisite translation copies are on record. Raising doubts over ASG Mehta, Sibal questioned how come more than 19,000 pages of documents can be filed in such short time. Sibal told the Supreme Court that he and other petitioners have not been served relevant documents of pleadings. Meanwhile, the petitioners who had filed their pleadings in Allahabad High Court, have asked the Supreme Court for a reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents. Ayodhya dispute: Petitioners are pleading in SC for reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents, which were filed before the Allahabad High Court bench at Lucknow. — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × Good news is that the Supreme Court has taken the formula proposed by us on record: Wasim Rizvi,Shia Waqf Board Chairman on Ayodhya hearing pic.twitter.com/tSVdBti2a3 — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels have also demanded for a larger bench of judges. They have demanded a bench of at least seven judges. Ayodhya dispute: Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels want a larger bench of atleast 7 Judges to hear this matter. — ANI (@ANI) December 5, 2017 × (With inputs from ANI)

Ayodhya case: Supreme Court defers case to February next year

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-top-court-lets-trumps-latest-travel-ban-go-into-full-effect-25872">US Supreme Court lets Trump&#39;s latest travel ban go into full effect</a>

The US Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-commence-final-hearing-on-ayodhya-dispute-from-today-25881">Supreme Court to commence final hearing </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-commence-final-hearing-on-ayodhya-dispute-from-today-25881">in</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/supreme-court-to-commence-final-hearing-on-ayodhya-dispute-from-today-25881"> Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute today</a>

The Supreme Court is likely to commence its final hearing in the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute from today, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the medieval-era structure.

<a href="http://Sharad Yadav, Anwar Ali disqualified from Rajya Sabha">Sharad Yadav, Anwar Ali disqualified from Rajya Sabha</a>

Rebel JD(U) Members of Parliament (MPs) Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar were disqualified from the Rajya Sabha on Monday night after the Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu agreed to the Janata Dal (United)&#39;s contention that the two senior leaders had &quot;voluntarily given up&quot; their membership by defying their party&#39;s directives and attending events of opposition parties.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/10000-google-staff-set-to-police-youtube-content-chief-executive-susan-wojcicki-25873" target="_blank">10,000 Google staff to police YouTube content</a>

Google has said it will deploy, by 2018, a total of 10,000 people to hunt down content on YouTube that is extremist or could endanger children, media reports said. &nbsp;

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki admitted to Britain&#39;s Daily Telegraph that &ldquo;bad actors are exploiting&rdquo; the video-sharing site to &ldquo;mislead, manipulate, harass or even harm&rdquo;.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-delays-jerusalem-verdict-as-pressure-mounts-25874">Trump delays decision to move US embassy to Jerusalem</a>

Facing dark warnings of a historic misstep and widespread unrest, US President Donald Trump on Monday delayed a decision on whether to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and move the US embassy there.

US defence secretary Mattis asks Pakistan to &#39;redouble efforts to confront terrorists&#39;

US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis on Monday asked Pakistan&#39;s civilian and military leaders to &quot;redouble&quot; their efforts to confront militants and terrorists operating within the country.

US Supreme Court lets Trump's latest travel ban go into full effect The US Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by allowing his latest travel ban targeting people from six Muslim-majority countries to go into full effect even as legal challenges continue in lower courts. Supreme Court to commence final hearing in Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute today The Supreme Court is likely to commence its final hearing in the long-standing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute from today, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the medieval-era structure. Sharad Yadav, Anwar Ali disqualified from Rajya Sabha Rebel JD(U) Members of Parliament (MPs) Sharad Yadav and Ali Anwar were disqualified from the Rajya Sabha on Monday night after the Rajya Sabha chairman Venkaiah Naidu agreed to the Janata Dal (United)'s contention that the two senior leaders had "voluntarily given up" their membership by defying their party's directives and attending events of opposition parties. 10,000 Google staff to police YouTube content Google has said it will deploy, by 2018, a total of 10,000 people to hunt down content on YouTube that is extremist or could endanger children, media reports said. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki admitted to Britain's Daily Telegraph that “bad actors are exploiting” the video-sharing site to “mislead, manipulate, harass or even harm”. Trump delays decision to move US embassy to Jerusalem Facing dark warnings of a historic misstep and widespread unrest, US President Donald Trump on Monday delayed a decision on whether to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital and move the US embassy there. US defence secretary Mattis asks Pakistan to 'redouble efforts to confront terrorists' US Defence Secretary Jim Mattis on Monday asked Pakistan's civilian and military leaders to "redouble" their efforts to confront militants and terrorists operating within the country.

WION morning news brief, November 5, 2017

Congress leader Randeep Surejwala has said that Congress stand has always been clear and that the BJP is playing the role of &#39;Manthara&#39;.&nbsp;

Surejwala said, &quot; The Congress stand has always been clear, that Ayodhya case will be decided by Supreme Court, same has been said by Law minister many times.&quot;

He said that that the Congress party has nothing to do with who Kapil Sibal represents.&nbsp;

Referring to Arun Jaitley&#39;s representation in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy&nbsp;case, the Congress leader asked: should the entire BJP be blamed for that?

BJP President Amit Shah had asked&nbsp;Congress to clear their stand on temple issue after&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/ayodhya-case-next-hearing-in-supreme-court-in-february-2018-25932" target="_blank">Kapil Sibal asked for a delay in Ramjanambhoomi case</a>.&nbsp;

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;has asked the Supreme Court&nbsp;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;

Replying to Amit Shah, Congress leader Randeep Surejwala has said that Congress stand has always been clear and that the BJP is playing the role of Manthara

Congress leader Randeep Surejwala has said that Congress stand has always been clear and that the BJP is playing the role of 'Manthara'. Surejwala said, " The Congress stand has always been clear, that Ayodhya case will be decided by Supreme Court, same has been said by Law minister many times." He said that that the Congress party has nothing to do with who Kapil Sibal represents. Referring to Arun Jaitley's representation in the Bhopal Gas Tragedy case, the Congress leader asked: should the entire BJP be blamed for that? BJP President Amit Shah had asked Congress to clear their stand on temple issue after Kapil Sibal asked for a delay in Ramjanambhoomi case. 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 has asked the Supreme Court 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.

BJP playing the role of 'Manthara': Congress leader

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday (December 5) begin final hearing in centuries old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri mosque land dispute case.

The dispute started shortly after the construction of the mosque in 16th century. The Hindus believe the place where mosque was constructed is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Muslims refuse to accept this claim.

The first suit was filed in 1885 by Hindus seeking permission to build a Ram temple near Babri mosque. The petition was dismissed. Since then, the case has seen several twists and turns, and its share of politics and has managed to polarise the opinions.

Here is a timeline of the case:

1949: Idols of Lord Ram&nbsp;placed inside the Babri mosque, leading to clashes. The site is declared disputed by the government and gates locked.&nbsp;

1986: Orders from district court are given to open the gates of the mosque. Babri Masjid Action Committee, one of the party to the case, is formed.

1989: Vishwa Hindu Parishad decides to build foundations of Ram temple in the land adjacent to the mosque. Four suits are filed.

1990: BJP leader LK Advani begins a &#39;rath yatra&#39; from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh to build momentum for building Ram temple near Babri mosque.

1991: UP government acquires land around the disputed structure for devotees who want to visit the site for Ram Lalla&rsquo;s darshan.

December 6, 1992: Babri mosque demolished by karsevaks (volunteers), leading to one of the deadliest riots, killing 2,000 people. Two FIRs filed - one against unknown karsevaks and the other against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others.

October, 1993: CBI files chargesheet accusing Advani and others of conspiracy in mosque demolition.

May, 2001: Special CBI court drops proceedings against Advani, Uma Bharti and other leaders.

2003: Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reveals that a temple existed before the mosque was built.

2009: Liberhan commission appointed to formulate a report to investigate the incidents following the demolition. The report claims that BJP leaders were responsible for demolition of the mosque.

May, 2010: Advani and others absolved of conspiracy charges.

September, 2010: Allahabad High Court directs trifurcation of land -&nbsp;two-third&nbsp;is given to Hindu parties and one-third to Waqf Bord. They move&nbsp;the Supreme Court, challenging the order.

2011: The challenge is rejected, Supreme Court orders status quo to be maintained.

April, 2017: Supreme Court revives cospiracy charges against BJP leaders LK Advani,&nbsp;Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others.

May, 2017: LK Advani, Joshi, MM Bharti, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the mosque demolition case.

August, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals on December 5, 2017, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition.

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday (December 5) begin final hearings in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri mosque land dispute case

The Supreme Court will on Tuesday (December 5) begin final hearing in centuries old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri mosque land dispute case. The dispute started shortly after the construction of the mosque in 16th century. The Hindus believe the place where mosque was constructed is the birthplace of Lord Ram. The Muslims refuse to accept this claim. The first suit was filed in 1885 by Hindus seeking permission to build a Ram temple near Babri mosque. The petition was dismissed. Since then, the case has seen several twists and turns, and its share of politics and has managed to polarise the opinions. Here is a timeline of the case: 1949: Idols of Lord Ram placed inside the Babri mosque, leading to clashes. The site is declared disputed by the government and gates locked. 1986: Orders from district court are given to open the gates of the mosque. Babri Masjid Action Committee, one of the party to the case, is formed. 1989: Vishwa Hindu Parishad decides to build foundations of Ram temple in the land adjacent to the mosque. Four suits are filed. 1990: BJP leader LK Advani begins a 'rath yatra' from Somnath in Gujarat to Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh to build momentum for building Ram temple near Babri mosque. 1991: UP government acquires land around the disputed structure for devotees who want to visit the site for Ram Lalla’s darshan. December 6, 1992: Babri mosque demolished by karsevaks (volunteers), leading to one of the deadliest riots, killing 2,000 people. Two FIRs filed - one against unknown karsevaks and the other against LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others. October, 1993: CBI files chargesheet accusing Advani and others of conspiracy in mosque demolition. May, 2001: Special CBI court drops proceedings against Advani, Uma Bharti and other leaders. 2003: Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) reveals that a temple existed before the mosque was built. 2009: Liberhan commission appointed to formulate a report to investigate the incidents following the demolition. The report claims that BJP leaders were responsible for demolition of the mosque. May, 2010: Advani and others absolved of conspiracy charges. September, 2010: Allahabad High Court directs trifurcation of land - two-third is given to Hindu parties and one-third to Waqf Bord. They move the Supreme Court, challenging the order. 2011: The challenge is rejected, Supreme Court orders status quo to be maintained. April, 2017: Supreme Court revives cospiracy charges against BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and others. May, 2017: LK Advani, Joshi, MM Bharti, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the mosque demolition case. August, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals on December 5, 2017, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition.

Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute: A timeline

babri-masjid

Babri Masjid, News on Babri Masjid, stories on Babri Masjid, articles on Babri Masjid, Babri Masjid stories at Wion, Babri Masjid news, Babri Masjid latest news

babri masjid