Directs UP Govt to translate 90,000-page oral evidence in 10 weeks | To hear cross-appeals on December 5

New Delhi,
Noting that it wanted time-bound disposal of the Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the Supreme Court today directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to get the 90,000-page oral evidence in the case translated within 10 weeks and fixed December 5 to hear cross-appeals in the case.

Around seven years after the Allahabad High Court’s September 30, 2010, order dividing the 2.7-acre disputed land equally between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra took up cross-appeals filed by various parties at 2 pm and tried to fix modalities of the hearing.

If everything goes as per the schedule fixed by the top court, the next hearing would be on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the disputed structure at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.

The Bench asked the Uttar Pradesh Government to hand over the translated documents in hard-bound form to the counsel representing various parties. The state government agreed to take up the mammoth translation work after the Bench told senior counsel Tushar Mehta and Advocate-General Raghavendra Singh that it had to be done to expedite the hearing.

The Bench, which also included Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, made it clear that the case had to be decided in a time-bound manner and no adjournment would be allowed in any circumstances. The parties would have to strictly adhere to the timeframe fixed by it, the Bench noted.

It said other documents in the form of 533 exhibits cited in the High Court’s verdict would have to be translated by the parties that choose to rely on them. It gave them 12 weeks for it.

Counsel representing the Sunni Central Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara wanted the hearing to commence in January 2018, contending they needed more time to prepare their respective cases.

“What’s the hurry? Service (of notice) is not complete….Translation of documents from seven languages, Arabic, Persian, Sanskrit, Pali, Urdu, Punjabi and Hindi, has to be done… Please follow due procedure,” senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan and Kapil Sibal said on behalf of the Sunni Central Waqf Board said. They were supported by Nirmohi Akhara represented by senior counsel Sushi Kumar Jain.

“What were you doing for the last seven years?” the Bench asked Sibal.

On the other hand, advocates representing Ram Lalla–the deity–CS Vaidyanathan and Shyam Divan said they were ready to start arguments on November 14, as originally proposed by the top court.

Earlier, maintaining that it was part of core belief of Hindus that Lord Ram was born at Ayodhya, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy said his application related to fundamental right to worship guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution that needed to be given precedence over other petitions relating to property dispute. “How will the worship take place can be decided after the court decides who has the right to worship,” Dhavan said.

The Bench made it clear that all other petitions and interventions applications in connection with Ayodhya case, including those by Swamy and Shia Central Wakf Board, Uttar Pradesh would be kept pending as it intended to hear the main matter first.

The Shia Waqf Board has claimed the demolished mosque was Shia Waqf property as Mir Baqi who got Babri Mosque constructed was a Shia Muslim. It also supported construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site where a makeshift temple exits at present, saying a masjid could be built in a Muslim area.

Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya thousands of years ago. During Mughal emperor Babar’s rule, a mosque was constructed at the place in 1528 after destroying the temples existing there.

The RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and the BJP have been running a campaign for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. On December 6, 1992, kar sevaks of right-wing Hindu organisations demolished the disputed structure. Many BJP leaders, including LK Advani and Murali Manohar Joshi, are facing a criminal case in connection with the demolition.

But the civil dispute over 2.7 acres is a separate one that has been on since 1961 when the Sunni Wakf Board took the matter to court.