• search
For Quick Alerts
For Daily Alerts

No early hearing in Ram Temple matter, permission declined says SC


New Delhi, Nov 12: The Supreme Court has rejected a plea that sought an early hearing into the Ayodhya title suit. The court said that it had in its recent order posted the matter for January.

Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha for early hearing of the petitions in Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case. "We have already passed the order. The appeals are coming up in January. Permission declined," the bench said.

No early hearing in Ram Temple matter as SC rejects plea

The plea was filed after the SC had recently said that the matter would be posted to January 2019. The court however made it clear that in January, a new Bench would be set up, which in turn would decide on whether the appeals would be heard.

Manipur encounters: Plea for recusal of judges rejected by Supreme CourtManipur encounters: Plea for recusal of judges rejected by Supreme Court

In a one line observation, the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India, Ranjan Gogoi said, 'list in the month of January, first week before an appropriate Bench for fixing the date of hearing.'

The CJI clarified that this does not mean that the appeals will be heard in January. It will be listed for fixing another date of hearing, the CJI also said. We have our own priorities. Whether it comes in January, February or March will be the call of the appropriate Bench, the CJI also said.

On September 27, the Supreme Court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

In a majority verdict of 2:1, a three-judge bench headed by then chief justice Dipak Misra had said the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.

CBI war: SC hearing today, CVC to submit report on VermaCBI war: SC hearing today, CVC to submit report on Verma

Justice Ashok Bhushan, who had penned the judgment for himself and the Chief Justice of India, had said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge bench had delivered the 1994 verdict.

However, Justice S Abdul Nazeer had disagreed with the two judges and had said whether a mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering religious belief which requires detailed consideration.

The court had on September 27 said the civil suit on land dispute would be heard by a three-judge bench on October 29.

The issue whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict.

The three-judge high court bench, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

For Daily Alerts
Get Instant News Updates
Notification Settings X
Time Settings
Clear Notification X
Do you want to clear all the notifications from your inbox?
Settings X