Ahead of the expected Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya case, the BJP on Monday, 4 November, asked its party workers and spokespersons to restrain from making emotive and provocative statements on the Ram temple issue.The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh had issued a similar word of caution to its cadre a few days ago.Uttar Pradesh Police Chief OP Singh on Sunday, 3 November, said that the state police is geared up and if needed the National Security Act (NSA) will be imposed on elements who attempt to disrupt law and order.A five-judge SC bench heard the Ayodhya case on a day-to-day basis for 40 days and reserved its verdict on 16 OctoberWith CJI Ranjan Gogoi set to retire on 17 November, the judgment in the case is expected to be out before that Section 144 has been imposed in Ayodhya district till 10 December in anticipation of the verdict in the case We'll get through this! Meanwhile, here's all you need to know about the Coronavirus outbreak to keep yourself safe, informed, and updated. The Quint is now available on Telegram & WhatsApp too, Click here to join.Arguments on whether a temple really existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya were presented on Tuesday before the Supreme Court, which heard the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case for the fifth day, reported PTI.Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman, advanced arguments on whether there was a temple over which the mosque was constructed.Senior advocate K Parasaran, also appearing for the deity, told the court that it must do “full and complete justice” in all matters before it.Advocate CS Vaidyanathan, representing the deity Ram Lalla in the Supreme Court, made his arguments by citing a book about the demolition of a temple and construction of a mosque by either Mughal emperor Babur or Aurangzeb, according to Bar and Bench.From the 'Purans' written by sages to travelogues of an English trader, a missionary and a physician, the counsel for deity 'Ram Lalla' cited them all in the Supreme Court on Wednesday to support claims that Hindus have long believed Ayodhya to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, reports PTI.'Ram Lalla', a party in the land dispute, informed the SC through its counsel that all the relevant historical material available shows the faith and belief of Hindus that Ayodhya was birthplace of Lord Ram and that there was a temple at the disputed site, according to PTI.The advocate for Ram Lalla Virajman, one of the parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri masjid case, on Friday told the the Supreme Court that there were several pictures of deities found on pillars at the disputed site in Ayodhya.The submissions were made during the seventh day hearing in the case.Senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, for deity 'Ram Lalla Virajaman', made the arguments before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi.The senior lawyer read out the report of the commissioner appointed to inspect the disputed site, PTI reported.The court commissioner had inspected the disputed site on 16 April 1950 and his report describes presence of pillars with images of Lord Shiva, the lawyer told the court.According to the source, the five-judge Constitution Bench could not assemble for hearing as CJI Gogoi had some urgent work.The source clarified that all the five judges were in the apex court and there was some miscommunication regarding Justice S A Bobde's unavailability.The official said Justice Bobde was working in his chamber throughout the day, PTI reported.The matter is listed for hearing on Tuesday.Terming archeological evidence as "credible" and "scientific", the counsel for deity 'Ram Lalla' told the Supreme Court that it referred to the existence of a 'Vishnu Hari' temple in middle of 12th century at the disputed site of Ayodhya where Babri mosque later came up either on the ruins or after demolition of the temple.He referred to the recovery of an old stone slab of the size of 4x2 feet during the demolition of the disputed structure on 6 December 1992 from the site and read out the report of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and the testimonies of an expert and an eye-witness journalist to highlight the findings that there was a massive temple.The Babri Masjid was built after demolishing a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and Hindus kept worshipping there without giving up its possession, a Hindu litigant Thursday told the Supreme Court, while seeking enforcement of right to worship there.Devotee Gopal Singh Visharad, who filed the lawsuit in the lower court in 1950 seeking right to pray, died in 1986 and is now represented by his son Rajendra Singh.The five judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi heard the arguments on the 10th day in the decades-old politically sensitive land dispute."The mosque was built after demolishing the Ram temple, and despite that Hindus continued worshipping there and did not give up possession...Moreover, Muslims were never in possession of the site," senior advocate Ranjit Kumar told the bench which also comprised Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer."I am making my submissions with reference to Parasaran's and Vaidyanathan's submissions (both lawyers represented the deity) that the place is itself a divine site and that I being the worshipper, my right to worship, which is a civil right, should not be curtailed," he said.The Supreme Court has asked the UP government to issue orders within two weeks on the extension of tenure of the special judge hearing Babri Masjid demolition case, news agency PTI reported.The trial judge in the Ayodhya temple-mosque case, Surendra Kumar Yadav, has asked the Supreme Court for police protection.The apex cout also told the Uttar Pradesh government to examine his request and give its response within two weeks.Justice RF Nariman and Surya Kant agreed to the demand being "reasonable" considering the gravity and scale of the task he was given, according to NDTV.The Supreme Court told Nirmohi Akhara, which has said the lawsuit of 'Ram Lalla' be rejected and the disputed land in Ayodhya be given to it as it has been the deity's sole devotee, that the claim of 'shebait' (devotee) "can never be adverse to the deity".Hearing the arguments on the 11th day, the top court said that if the Hindu body was contesting the suit of 'Ram Lalla Virajman', it was going against the deity's title and asking the court to dismiss the suit of the deity.On Thursday, the Akhara claimed it was the sole 'shebait' of Ram Lalla at the disputed site, prompting the court to say if it was so then the Akhara cannot have the title over the 2.77-acre disputed land.Hindu body 'Nirmohi Akahara' is "unnecessarily" opposing the plea of deity 'Ram Lalla' for the title of disputed Ramjanam Bhoomi-Babri Masjid land as both the parties will "stand" or "fall" together, the Supreme Court said on Monday, 26 August, PTI reported.A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Jusrtice Ranjan Gogoi, was critical of the submission of 'Akhara' that being the 'shebait' (devotee), only its lawsuit was maintainable and the case filed by deity 'Ram Lalla Virajman', through next friend Deoki Nandan Agrawal, should not be allowed."There is no conflict between your (Akahara's) suit and the suit filed by plaintiff number 1 (Ram Lalla)... Even if the suit of plaintiff (deity and others) is allowed, your right as 'shebait' stands," the bench said while hearing the arguments on the 12th day of the case.Hindu body 'Nirmohi Akahara' told the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 28 August that it was not opposing the lawsuit of deity 'Ram Lalla' for the title of disputed Ramjanam Bhoomi-Babri Masjid land at Ayodhya.'Akahara' apprised a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, of its stand following a direction whether it opposes the plea of the deity in view of the fact that its right as 'shebait' (devotee) over the property can only stand if the lawsuit of 'Ram Lalla Virajman' is allowed.'Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti', a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a Muslim party in the case, on Wednesday, 28 August, referred to the historical books like 'Tuzuk-i-Baburi or Baburnama', 'Humayunnama', 'Akbarnama' and 'Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri' before a five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, to highlight its point that none of these talked about the existence of Babri masjid.Advancing submissions on the 14th day of the decades-old case, senior advocate PN Mishra, appearing for the Hindu body, said these books, specially 'Baburnama', did not talk about either destruction of the temple or construction of the Babri mosque in Ayodhya by Mir Baki, the commander of the first Mughal emperor, PTI reported."Babur did not enter Ayodhya and therefore, he had no occasion to direct demolition of the temple and construction of the mosque in 1528 AD and moreover, there was no person with the name of Mir Baqi as his commander," Mishra reportedly told the bench.The counsel for 'Akhil Bhartiya Sri Ram Janam Bhoomi Punarudhar Samiti' told a five-judge Constitution bench on Thursday, 29 August, that the Allahabad High Court erred in saying it will not go into the issue as to whether Babur constructed the mosque without following 'Shraia', 'hadidth and other Islamic practices.Senior advocate PN Mishra, appearing for the Hindu body, a defendant in a lawsuit filed by a Muslim party in the case, said that instead of deciding on the allegations that Babur was not the owner of the land and was incapable of validly executing 'wakf' for the mosque, the high court held that since almost 500 years have passed, it would not deal with the issue which may be a matter of "debate for historians", PTI reported."In Islam, even an absolute sovereign like Babur could not do everything. He still had to abide by the religion," Mishra told the bench headed by CJI, and also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, on the 15th day of the hearing in the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case."What High Court suggested here that Babur had the absolute power and he had done something...that cannot be reviewed. They (HC) said that now we cannot get into the question as to what Babur did was against 'sharia'," the bench said, as per PTI.The Shia Wakf Board on Friday told the Supreme Court that it was ready to forgo one third of 2.77 acre of disputed land allotted to Muslim bodies by the Allahabad High Court to Hindus for construction of a temple at Ayodhya.A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which concluded hearing of arguments from the Hindus' side, was told by the Shia Board that Mir Baki, a commander of Babur, was a Shia and was first 'Mutawalli' or caretaker of the Babri mosque as he had constructed it.Lawyer M C Dhingra, appearing for Shia Wakf Board, said the high court, while dividing the disputed land into three equal parts, had given one third share to Muslims and not to Sunni Wakf Board and hence, it wanted to give its share to Hindus on grounds including that Babri mosque was a Shia Wakf property.A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by CJI Gogoi, which commenced hearing arguments from the Muslim side on 17th day of the proceedings in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan on Monday, 2 September, that the historical assertions and facts cannot be relied upon completely in deciding the lawsuits."In 1934, you (Hindus) break the masjid and in 1949, you commit trespass and finally, in 1992, you demolish the mosque... and after all the destructions, you say that the Britishers collaborated against Hindus and now say that our right must be protected," said Dhavan, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board and one of the original litigants, M Siddiq.The Bench, however, told him, "Please do not go into all this. Your arguments should be relevant to issues."Dhavan said all these issues have been raised by the other side and he should be allowed to respond as this hearing was related to "future of this country".The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 3 September, sought responses from two persons for allegedly threatening senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan for taking up the case on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter.The bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi has posted contempt pleas for hearing after two weeks.Dhavan had filed contempt petition against two persons, N Shanmugam, a retired education officer, and a Rajasthan resident, Sanjay Kalal Bajrangi, for allegedly threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties.Dhavan, who appeared for lead petitioner M Siddiq and the All India Sunni Waqf Board, had said that he received a letter on 14 August 2019 from Shanmugam, threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties.Iqbal Ansari, one of the main litigants in the Babri Masjid dispute, was on Tuesday allegedly physically assaulted at his house in Ayodhya by two people who, he claimed, threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw the case.His security personnel intervened and saved him from the attackers who were detained by police.The Supreme Court today took note of allegations of Muslim parties that many witnesses of Nirmohi Akhara made “tall claims” in their testimonies and asked them whether they still accept that it has rights over the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri masjid land at Ayodhya.A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi considered the submission of senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board and others including original litigant M Siddiq, that there were “discrepancies” and “contradictions” in statements of witnesses examined by the Akhara in favour of its lawsuit.“Somebody said Nirmohi Akhara came into being 700 years ago, some said 250 years ago. A witness said Lord Ram was there 12 lakh years ago,” the senior advocate told the bench also comprising justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer.“But, I cannot get away from the fact that there are records that Nirmohi Akhara was there in 1855-56 and a suit was filed (by Mahant Raghubar Das) in 1885,” he added, reported PTI. The Supreme Court on Friday said a plea seeking live telecast or recording of the ongoing proceedings in the Ayodhya land dispute case be listed before the constitution bench, reported PTI.The petition, filed by former RSS ideologue K N Govindacharya, came up for hearing before a bench comprising justices R F Nariman and Surya Kant.Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Govindacharya, said if live telecast of Ayodhya case proceedings was not possible then at least audio recording or transcription of hearing should be done.He referred to the apex court's last year's verdict allowing live-streaming of court proceedings of cases of constitutional and national importance to buttress his arguments.The CBI on Monday, 9 September, moved an application in Special CBI court, Lucknow for summoning former Rajasthan Governor Kalyan Singh in the Ayodhya Babri mosque demolition case. Hearing on the petition will take place on 11 September, CNN News 18 reported.Completing his term as Rajasthan governor, a constitutional post that protected him from facing trial in the Babri Masjid demolition case, Kalyan Singh on Monday, 9 September, challenged opposition parties to clarify their stand on the construction of a Ram temple at that spot.Singh, who was Uttar Pradesh chief minister when the mosque at the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya was demolished, rejoined the BJP at the party office.“Ayodhya is a sacred pilgrim spot. Construction of a temple of Lord Ram is a matter of faith for crores of people. And Lord Ram himself is a symbol of faith for crores of people of the country,” he said during his press conference later in the day.The CBI on, Wednesday 11 September, sought more time from a special court, conducting the trial of those accused in the alleged conspiracy of Babri Masjid demolition, for furnishing documents to put on record that Kalyan Singh no longer holds the constitutional post of governor.The central probe agency had on Monday, 9 September moved the special CBI court here for summoning Singh to face trial in the case after his term as Rajasthan governor ended.Singh, who was Uttar Pradesh chief minister when the mosque in Ayodhya was demolished, enjoyed protection from trial while he held a constitutional post as governor. After completing his five-year term as governor, the 87-year-old Singh rejoined the BJP at the party office in Lucknow on Monday.The Supreme Court on Thursday 12 September took note of the submission of a lawyer, representing Muslim parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, that he has been receiving threat messages for appearing in the matter."This has to be deprecated. This is something which should not be happening," a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.The moment the bench assembled to commence hearing in the decades old politically sensitive case on 22nd day, senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board and others, alleged that he has received a threat message on Facebook and yesterday his clerk was assaulted by few other persons in the apex court premises."This is not the right atmosphere conducive for hearing," Dhavan said adding that these things should not happen in the court and "one word from your Lordship" will be enough on this.The bench, which also comprise justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, then proceeded with the hearing in the case.The three-member Ayodhya mediation panel on Monday, 16 September moved a memorandum before the Supreme Court Bench, headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi, seeking its direction on requests received from a Hindu and Muslim party seeking resumption of negotiations for settlement.Muslim parties on Monday, 16 September opposed in the Supreme Court the decision to make 'janmbhoomi' (birth place) of Lord Ram as a party besides the deity and alleged it has been done with the sole motive to ensure that no other person can make a claim over the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri masjid land.It was earlier alleged by the counsel for 'Ram Lalla Virajman' that the birth place of Lord Ram is also a deity and Muslims cannot claim right over the 2.77-acre disputed land as any division of the property would amount to "destruction" and "mutilation" of the deity itself.A 5-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Sunni Waqf Board and others including original litigant M Siddiq, that the birthplace was cannot be a juristic entity and moreover, it has been made a party in 1989 to ensure that no law applies to it and other claimants are "knocked off".Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Wednesday, 18 September, said, "As per the estimate of tentative dates to finish the hearing in the case, we can say that the submissions have to likely be completed by 18 October."The verdict is expected to come in November.The five-judge Constitution bench, headed by the CJI, also said that simultaneously the mediation process can go along with the hearing, which is taking place in the Supreme Court.SC extends court hour from 4 pm to 5 pm, from Monday, to hear Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case.A Special CBI Court has issued an order to produce BJP leader Kalyan Singh in court on 27 September.Intense arguments are predicted in the Ayodhya title dispute in the Supreme Court as the 18 October deadline approaches, leaving eight days of active hearing in the politically vexing 70-year-old case.The counsel for deity Ram Lalla on Thursday told the Supreme Court that there is "proof beyond doubt" about the existence of a "massive structure" beneath the demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya and inference from excavated materials can be drawn that it was a temple.A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla that contention of Muslim parties that a structure beneath the disputed structure was a idgah wall or an Islamic structure was not correct."First there case was that there was no structure at all, secondly they said it was an Islamic structure or a Idgah wall. We say that it was a temple which was demolished and the pillar bases found during excavation also suggest to this effect", Vaidyanathan in his rejoinder arguments said.He further stated, "That there was a structure beneath is a proof beyond doubt".Hindu parties asserted in the Supreme Court that claims of the Muslim side over the 2.77-acre land in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute were belied by the excavated material which suggested existence of a "massive structure" beneath the demolished mosque.The counsel for deity Ram Lalla said that the excavated materials are a “proof beyond doubt” about the existence of the structure beneath the demolished mosque in Ayodhya while rebutting the claim of Muslim parties about the existence of an Islamic structure, reported PTI.The counsel stated that from the pillar bases, artefacts, circular shrine, intersecting brickbat walls found in excavation, an inference can be drawn that the massive structure was a temple and not any Islamic structure.A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate CS Vaidyanathan, appearing for deity Ram Lalla, that contention of the Muslim parties about a structure beneath the disputed site being an 'idgah' wall or an Islamic structure was not correct.The Supreme Court restrained a Hindu party from placing or relying on any material as new evidence in the Ayodhya land dispute case, saying it won't allow it at this stage of the hearing which entered the 36th day on Thursday.“Just because a five-judge Constitution Bench is sitting, you cannot bring any new materials at this stage. The Constitution bench is hearing this case because of the importance and sensitivity of the matter,” said a Bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, reported PTI.The Bench stopped senior advocate PN Mishra, appearing for a Hindu party, from referring to the sacredness of Rama Sethu based on the Skanda Purana.The Supreme Court said that it would wrap up hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute at Ayodhya by 17 October , a day sooner than the earlier schedule.A 5-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, on the conclusion of 37th day of the hearing, fixed the schedule for the final leg of the lengthy arguments.The Muslim side would complete the arguments on October 14 it said, adding that thereafter, two days would be granted to the Hindu parties to sum up their rejoinders — 16 October.“17 October would be the last day for wrapping up the hearing when the parties will have to make the final arguments about the relief they are seeking,” the court said, reported PTI.A group of Muslim intellectuals has suggested out of court settlement of the vexed Ayodhya issue, stressing that it would help establish peace in the country if Muslims hand over the disputed land to the central government as a "goodwill gesture", reported PTI.Convenor of the newly-constituted "Indian Muslims for peace" Kalam Khan in a press statement, said that a meeting of the forum held on Thursday, 10 October, passed a resolution favouring out of court settlement of the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute. He said the group would prefer out of court settlement so that both Hindus and Muslims remain happy and no party feels aggrieved.Section 144 has been imposed in Ayodhya district till 10 December in anticipation of the verdict in Ayodhya Land Dispute Case, Ayodhya District Magistrate Anuj Kumar Jha said on Sunday. He also said that the decision has been taken in consideration of upcoming festivals.Appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board, advocate Rajiv Dhawan on Monday argued in the Supreme Court that the Hindus had no claim of title in 1989.“We have been in possession throughout. Their claim to title comes much later. In fact, their claim to title was denied in 1986,” Dhawan said.Presenting the Sunni Waqf Board’s case, Rajiv Dhawan said that Hindus have only claimed the right to pray at the disputed site, not proprietorship of land.“They have not claimed anything more than prescriptive right. They said they have a right to build a temple there. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff is in any sense the proprietor of the land in question," he said.The Muslim parties in the case alleged before the Supreme Court that questions are being posed only at them and not the Hindu side, PTI reported.This comment was made by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim parties, before a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi."Your Lordship didn't ask question to the other side.All the questions have been asked to us only. Of course, we are answering them." Dhavan told the bench on the 38th day of the crucial hearing in the case.The Supreme Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide security to UP Sunni Waqf Board chairman Zufar Ahmad Farooqui.Through one of the mediators in the case- Sriram Panchu, Farooqui had informed the Court's five-judge Constitution bench, that he fears for his life.Rajeev Dhavan, lawyer for the Muslim parties, told the Supreme Court that India could not be treated as a "monolithic entity" and the Indian society was more complex than Europe.A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, which was hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case for the 38th day, asked senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim parties, not to quote Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen to say something which was not connected to the case."Please do not refer to all this," the bench, also comprising justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, said.A "historical wrong" was committed by victorious emperor Babur by constructing a mosque at the birthplace of Lord Ram in Ayodhya which needed to be rectified now, a Hindu party said in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.A 5-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was told by former Attorney General and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for a Hindu party, that there were several mosques in Ayodhya where Muslims can pray but Hindus cannot change the birth place of Lord Ram.Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Tuesday said proceedings in the Ayodhya land dispute case would conclude on Wednesday, 16 October, ANI reported.“Today is 39th day,” Gogoi said. “Tomorrow is 40th day and last day of hearing in the case,” he said.Following rumours about Sunni Waqf Board withdrawing its claim to the title, Rajiv Dhawan’s office confirmed to The Quint that they are planning no such action. Dhawan is representing the Waqf Board.Hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case will conclude at 5 pm on Wednesday, CJI Gogoi confirmed.“We have already asked all the intervenors to apportion the time accordingly," he said.Representing the 'Ram Lalla' deity, advocate CS Vaidyanathan on Wednesday, 16 October said that none of the basis for claim of the title of disputed area has been proved by the Muslim party."Earlier Rajiv Dhavan had argued that there was no whisper of birthplace of Ram before 1855 which is contrary to the statement that till 1855 the place was used jointly by Hindus and Muslims as a place of worship," he said.Appearing for the son of one of the first plaintiffs Gopal Singh Visharad, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar emphasises on his pre-existing claim to worship at the disputed site and seeks dismissal of the suit by the Sunni Waqf Board.Representing the Nirvani Akhara and Mahant of Hanuman Garhi, advocate Jaideep Gupta claims that Nirvani Akhara has the real 'shebait' right and not Nirmohi Akhara.Gupta says late Baba Abhiram Das the priest of the disputed structure & that now his disciple Baba Dharmdas asserts 'shebait' right.'Shebait' is a person who serves the deity, consecrated in a temple.Advocate Vikas Singh, representing Hindu Mahasabha places the book 'Ayodhya Revisited' by former IPS Kishore Kunal in front of court that talked about pre-existence of the Ram temple.Waqf Board lawyer Rajiv Dhawan objects.Advocate Vikas Singh placed a pictorial representation that shows 'exact place of birth of Lord Ram'. Advocate Dhawan, representing Sunni Waqf Board, tore the document.The reference to the pictorial map by advocate Vikas Singh, representing the All India Mahasabha, was objected to by Dhavan.Dhavan then asked the bench as to what he should do with it, to which the bench said that he can shred it into pieces.Dhavan then tore the pictorial map, provided by the counsel for All India Hindu Mahasabha, in the courtroom.Representing the Nirmohi Akhara, Advocate Sushil Kumar Jain says that since the Muslim party pleaded that Babur had constructed the mosque, the burden of proof lies on them, and they have failed to prove their claim.After the submissions made by the lawyer for the All India Hindu Mahasabha in the case, CJI Ranjan Gogoi said, "If these are the kind of arguments going on, then we can just get up and walk out," reported ANI.The arguments in the high-profile Ayodhya case concluded on Wednesday, with the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reserving its judgment.The arguments lasted for 40 days, with the last day of hearing witnessing high drama.Speaking after the Supreme Court wrapped up the arguments in the Ayodhya case, Hindu Mahasabha's lawyer Varun Sinha said that the court has "made it clear that the decision will come, in this case, within 23 days."The five-judge Constitution bench hearing the Ayodhya case will sit in the chambers on Thursday.On a day the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, the Congress on Wednesday said the matter was under the court's consideration and should be left to it to decide upon, reported PTI.VHP International President Vishnu Sadashiv Kokje on Wednesday expressed hope for a "favourable" verdict in the Ayodhya title suit case."The pleas in favour of ownership of Hindus on the disputed land in Ayodhya were presented strongly in the Supreme Court. We are hoping for a good result. We hope the SC will deliver a very clear verdict in this case," he told PTI.The Supreme Court-appointed mediation panel to resolve the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute is believed to have filed a report in the apex court on Wednesday in a sealed cover, which sources cited by PTI said is a "sort of a settlement" between the Hindu and the Muslim parties.Sources close to the mediation panel said the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirvani Akhada, Nirmohi Akhada, Ram Janmabhoomi Punruddhar Samiti and some other Hindu parties are in favour of settling the contentious land dispute.Muslim parties in the Ayodhya land dispute case on Friday issued a statement expressing shock over reports suggesting that the Sunni Waqf Board was withdrawing from the case.Advocate Eijaz Maqbool, who represented key Muslim litigant M Siddiq in the Ayodhya land dispute, said all Muslim parties, except the Sunni Waqf Board, have rejected settlement as the main Hindu parties to the dispute were not part of the mediation process and its purported settlement.The Muslim parties, except the Sunni Waqf Board, issued a clarificatory statement to say they don't accept the Supreme Court appointed mediation panel's proposal on the purported settlement to amicably resolve the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid land dispute.Reciprocating Muslims' gestures to preserve peace and communal harmony in Ayodhya after the Supreme Court verdict on the title suit over the disputed Ram Janamabhoomi-Babri Masjid land is delivered, the VHP announced cancellation of all its programmes proposed after the ruling.For the maintenance of peace and communal harmony post-ruling, the Muslim parties to the tile suit earlier had announced deferring the construction of Masjid at the disputed site in Ayodhya if the verdict goes in their favour.The police officials have begun holding joint meeting of community leaders from the two sides, while issuing warning to the people against making any adverse comment against any particular religion or community before or after the verdict irrespective of the winners.BJP MP Sakshi Maharaj has claimed that the construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya will start by 6 December following the Supreme Court's judgement."The construction of Ram temple will commence before December 6. I want to thank the Supreme Court as it has heard non-stop for 40 days the matter that was pending for 150 years and after seriously hearing both the sides has reserved the judgement," he told the media."The manner in which the archaeological department has presented its facts. The Shia Board has given in writing that temple should be constructed there. Similarly, the Sunni Board also spoke in favour of the temple by the time hearing came to an end," the BJP MP said.To a question, he said, "I feel that soon we will get the verdict by the Supreme Court and it will be in favour of the Ram temple and its construction will start by December 6." It was on December 6, 1992, that the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid structure was demolished by kar sevaks.Uttar Pradesh Police Chief OP Singh on Sunday, 3 November, said the state police is ready and if needed the National Security Act (NSA) will be imposed on elements who attempt to disrupt law and order, ahead of the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict, according to ANI.“We are absolutely ready. Under no circumstances, anybody will be allowed to take law in hand. Our Intelligence machinery is geared up. If needed, the National Security Act will be imposed on elements who attempt to disrupt law and order,” Singh said.Ahead of the expected Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya case, the BJP on Monday, 4 November, asked its party workers and spokespersons to restrain from making emotive and provocative statements on the Ram temple issue.At a meeting of the party's spokespersons, media and social media departments from across the country, BJP's central leadership told them to avoid making unnecessary statements on the Ram temple issue, sources aware of the deliberations said.BJP social media head Amit Malviya also briefed social media teams of the party on how to prevent controversial statements on such platforms, they said.