A special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra has adjourned the hearing on a plea requesting for the Ayodhya land dispute matters to be sent to a five-judge constitution bench, to 27 April.
CJI Dipak Misra said that the bench would first hear both sides and only then decide on whether the land dispute appeals should be sent to a constitution bench.
The bench is hearing a batch of cross-petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, the Lord Ram deity (Ram Lalla) and the Sunni Waqf Board.
- The bench said on 14 March that it would first decide whether the land dispute appeals be sent to a five-judge constitution bench
- The SC also made it clear that only the parties to the original lawsuits would be allowed to put forth their arguments
- The hearing in the Ayodhya dispute case is now underway
Hearing Adjourned to 27 April
The Supreme Court has fixed 27 April as the next date of hearing in the case.
'Will Decide on Matter After Listening to Both Side': CJI Misra
The Supreme Court's three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said it will decide whether to send Ayodhya land dispute case to a five-judge bench but only after hearing from both sides.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is representing the case on behalf on the Muslims has been repeatedly pressing the Court to send the matter to a constitution bench, citing the court’s previous judgment with respect to polygamy.
Activists Out of Ayodhya Land Dispute, SC to Hear Original Litigants
The Supreme Court has dashed the hopes of activists like Shyam Benegal and Teesta Setalvad to intervene in the sensitive Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case, making it clear that only the parties to the original lawsuits would be allowed to put forth their arguments.
Counsel for appellants, as well as, the respondents in all the appeals have raised objections for such intervention/impleadment/filing additional documents/seeking permission to render assistance. We are of considered opinion that these interlocutory applications do not merit any consideration and they are accordingly rejected.SC Bench
It accepted the vehement contention of both the parties, Hindu and Muslim organisations and individuals, that only original parties to the dispute be allowed to argue.
Besides Benegal and Setalvad, eminent persons like Aparna Sen and Anil Dharker wanted to intervene for using the disputed 2.77 acre disputed land for some 'secular' purposes.
The intervention plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, at whose instance the cases were fast-tracked by the apex court, was also rejected.
The bench, however, considered Swamy's submission that he had not sought to intervene in the matter but filed a separate writ petition seeking enforcement of his fundamental right to worship at the birth place of Lord Ram 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.Subramanian Swamy
"As we are not inclined to permit the intervention application, the writ petition filed by the applicant (Swamy) shall stand revived and it shall be dealt with by the appropriate Bench in accordance with law," the bench said.
(Source: PTI)
Hearing Adjourned, Case Listed For Next Hearing on Friday 23 March
The hearing has been adjourned for the day. The Ayodhya case has been listed for 23 March next. The Court will first decide whether or not the matter needs to be referred to a larger bench when hearings resume.