New Delhi,
\nIt appears the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute will remain pending at least for now and will not be taken up by the Supreme Court despite procedural formalities having been completed for its hearing.<\/p>\n
Instead of the cross-appeals against the September 30, 2010, verdict of the Allahabad High Court dividing the 2.7-acre disputed land at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site equally between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board, the top court on Friday heard arguments on need and desirability of sending the dispute to a larger Bench.<\/p>\n
On behalf of one of the Muslim appellants, senior counsel Rajiv Dhavan insisted before a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra that it should first decide if the matter needed to be sent to a larger Bench.<\/p>\n
The top court had on March 14 agreed to consider if its 1994 Constitution Bench verdict in Ayodhya land acquisition case that place of worship was not integral to Islam required reconsideration by a larger Bench. It had heard Dhavan on this point even on March 23.<\/p>\n
On March 14, it had rejected the plea for sending the entire dispute to a Constitution Bench. \u201cYour submission is very ambitious,\u201d the CJI had told senior counsel Raju Ramachandran, who is also representing a Muslim appellant in the case.<\/p>\n
On Friday, however, Dhavan insisted the Bench should decide if the entire case should be referred to a Constitution Bench as it was an \u201cimportant matter\u201d. He also requested the Bench to consider the desirability of having a re-look at the 1994 verdict before taking up the cross-appeals for adjudication.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Ayodhya land dispute is far more important than polygamy among Muslims and the whole nation wants an answer,\u201d Dhavan argued.<\/p>\n
Ramachandran pointed out how the CJI had on March 14 in an \u201cuncharacteristically impatient\u201d manner turned down his demand for sending the entire case to a larger Bench.<\/p>\n
Allowing Dhavan to advance arguments on both points, the Bench said, if needed, it would pronounce a verdict on the issues raised by him after hearing the other parties.<\/p>\n
\u201cFirst, we should put this controversy (on 1994 verdict) to rest. We may refer the entire or parts of the judgment to larger Bench,\u201d it said.<\/p>\n
\u201cA mosque remains a mosque even after its demolition and belongs to the \u2018Allah\u2019,\u201d Dhavan said. As his arguments remained inconclusive, the Bench, also comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, posted the matter for further hearing on April 27 at 2 pm.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
New Delhi, It appears the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute will remain pending at least for now and will not be taken up by the Supreme Court despite procedural formalities having been completed for its hearing. Instead of the cross-appeals against the September 30, 2010, verdict of the Allahabad High Court dividing the 2.7-acre […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27261,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[312,315],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-india","category-top-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27260"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27262,"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27260\/revisions\/27262"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27261"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blastingskyhawk.com\/english\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}