The Supreme Court on Monday, 29 October, adjourned the Ayodhya matter for January 2019 for fixing a schedule of hearing by an appropriate bench.
A bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and KM Joseph was hearing a batch of pleas challenging the Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict by which the disputed land on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid area in Ayodhya was divided into three parts.
- Babri Masjid was razed to the ground on 6 December 1992 by hundreds of Karsewaks
- A 3-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court began hearing the case in 2002
- In 2010, the high court announced the trifurcation of the land
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)
BJP Polarises The Issue Every 5 Years: P Chidambaram
Former Union Minister P Chidambaram said that the BJP tries to polarise the issue of Ram temple every five years and that SC’s decision should be respected.
“This is a familiar story. Every five years before elections, BJP will try to polarise views on Ram Mandir. Congress party's position is that the matter is before SC,everyone should wait until SC decides. I don't think we should jump the gun,” he said.
Law is Being Played With By SC: Mahant Dharam Das
Mahant Dharam Das, one of the priests at the forefront of the Ayodhya dispute, said that law is being played with by the Supreme court and the case should be heard daily.
Will Raise the Issue in Parliament: Subramanian Swamy
BJP MP Subramanian Swamy, expressing discontent over the adjournment, said he will raise the issue in Parliament.
“I'll raise it in the Parliament session. We should bring in an ordinance proclaiming a law, which says that the 2.67 acres of land be given to Hindu organisation,” he said.
Adjournment Doesn’t Send a Good Message: Keshav Prasad Maurya
Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya said adjournment of the hearing does not send out a good message.
“I don't want to comment since it's the decision of Supreme Court. However, the adjournment of hearing doesn't send a good message,” he said.