STATE TIMES NEWSNew Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce on Saturday its verdict in the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya. The apex court is likely to pronounce judgement at 10:30 am. A notice regarding the pronouncement of judgement by a Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was uploaded on the official website of the Supreme Court late on Friday evening. Other members of the bench are Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer. The bench on October 16 had reserved the judgment after marathon hearing of 40 days. Hours before the notice, the CJI in the pre-noon held a meeting with Uttar Pradesh Chief Secretary Rajendra Kumar Tiwari and DGP Om Prakash Singh who apprised him about the security arrangements made to maintain law and order in the state. The meeting was held in the CJI’s chamber, sources said.
TIMELINE OF THE RAM TEMPLE 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 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.# 1961: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.# Feb 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers. Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister when the decision was taken.# 1989: Bhagwan Sri Ramlalla Virajman at Sri Ram Janam Boomi Ayodhya, Asthan Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Ayodhya file a title suit represented by “next friend” Deoki Nandan Agarwala, a former judge of the Allahabad High Court# Aug 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.# Sept 25, 1990: BJP leader LK Advani launches Rath Yatra from Somnath in Gujarat. # Dec 6, 1992: Babri Masjid was demolished by karsevaks.# Apr 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area. Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed in Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act. Supreme Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 139A, transferred the writ petitions, which were pending in the High Court.# Oct 24, 1994: SC says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that 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.# Mar 14: SC says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony.# Sep 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.# Feb 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.# Mar 21, 2017: CJI JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties.# Aug 7: SC constitutes a three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC.# Aug 8: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC that mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.# Sep 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.# Nov 20: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC that temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.# Dec 1: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC.# Feb 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals.# Mar 14: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.# Apr 6: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.# Jul 20: SC reserves verdict.# Sep 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.# Oct 29: SC fixes the case for the first week of January before an appropriate bench, which will decide the schedule of hearing.# Dec 24: SC decides to take up petitions on case for hearing on January 4.# Jan 4, 2019: SC says an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the title case.# Jan 8: SC sets up a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the case headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud.# Jan 10: Justice U U Lalit recuses himself prompting SC to reschedule the hearing for January 29 before a new bench.# Jan 25: SC reconstitutes 5-member Constitution Bench to hear the case. The new bench comprises Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.# Jan 29: Centre moves SC seeking permission to return the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed site to original owners.# Feb 20: SC decides to hear the case on Feb 26.# Feb 26: SC favours mediation, fixes March 5 for order on whether to refer matter to court-appointed mediator.# Mar 6: SC reserves order on whether the land dispute can be settled through mediation.# Apr 9: Nirmohi Akhara opposes Centre’s plea to return acquired land around Ayodhya site to owners.# May 9: The three-member mediation committee submits interim report to the SC.# Jul 18: SC allows mediation process to continue, seeks outcome report by Aug 1.# Aug 1: Report of mediation submitted in sealed cover to SC.# Aug 6: SC commences day-to-day hearing on the land dispute.# Oct 16: SC concludes hearing; reserves order.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Initially, as many as five lawsuits were filed in the lower court. The first one was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of ”Ram Lalla”, in 1950 to seek enforcement of the right to worship of Hindus at the disputed site. In the same year, the Paramahansa Ramachandra Das had also filed the lawsuit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols under the central dome of the now-demolished disputed structure. The plea was later withdrawn. Later, the Nirmohi Akhara also moved the trial court in 1959 seeking management and ”shebaiti” (devotee) rights over the 2.77 acre disputed land. Then came the lawsuit of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board which moved the court in 1961, claiming title right over the disputed property. The deity, ”Ram Lalla Virajman”, through next friend and former Allahabad High Court judge Deoki Nandan Agrawal, and the Janmbhoomi (the birthplace) moved the lawsuit in 1989, seeking title right over the entire disputed property on the key ground that the land itself has the character of the deity and of a ”Juristic entity”. Later, all the lawsuits were transferred to the Allahabad High Court for adjudication following the demolition of the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid structure on December 6, 1992, sparking communal riots in the country. The apex court had on August 6 commenced day-to-day proceedings in the case as the mediation proceedings initiated to find the amicable resolution had failed. It had taken note of the report of the three-member panel, comprising Justice FMI Kallifulla, spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, that mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months, did not result in any final settlement and it had to decide the matter pending before it.
Playing Shakuntala Devi was as intimidating as it was exhilarating: Vidya Balan
‘Glee’ star Naya Rivera found dead at California lake
Sara Ali Khan’s driver tests COVID-19 positive
Amitabh, Abhishek Bachchan stable, don’t require aggressive treatment: hospital sources
Amit Sadh tests negative for COVID-19
© 2020 State Times Daily Newspaper