National / World

Ayodhya dispute: Set up 7-judge bench, says Sibal; SC defers hearing to Feb 8

New Delhi, Dec 5 (Agencies): The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced final hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of medieval-era structure.

A specially constituted Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer are hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.

Kapil Sibal who is representing Sunni Waqf Board read out in the Supreme Court the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants before the Allahabad High Court.

Sibal told the three-judge bench that all these exhibits were not filled before the court. He submitted that all the pleadings were not complete.

Rebutting all the averments of Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh told SC that all the related documents and requisite translation copies were on record.

Kapil Sibal also raised doubts over assertions of ASG Mehta and asked how more than 19000 pages of documents could be filed in such short time. Sibal told SC that he and other petitioners have not been served relevant documents of pleadings.

Sibal told SC that there have serious repercussions outside court whenever the matter is heard.

Therefore, to preserve the decorum of law and order, Sibal personally requested the court to take the matter up on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete.

Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels also sought for a larger bench of at least 7 judges to hear the matter.

Petitioners also pleaded in the SC for reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents, which were filed before the Allahabad High Court bench at Lucknow.

The Allahabad High Court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area at Ayodhya among the parties — the All India Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

A sect of Muslims, under the banner of Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh, had approached the court, offering a solution that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a “reasonable distance” from the disputed site in Ayodhya.

Sunni Waqf Board's opposition

However, its intervention was opposed by the Sunni Waqf Board. It claimed that judicial adjudication between the two sects was done in 1946 by declaring the mosque, which was demolished on December 6, 1992, as one which belongs to the Sunnis.

Recently a group of civil rights activists also moved the apex court, seeking intervention in the dispute and urged it to consider the issue, saying it is not just a dispute over property but has several other aspects that would have far-reaching effects on the “secular fabric of the country.”

In pursuance to the apex court’s earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government has submitted English translation of exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon, as these were in eight different languages.

A battery of high profile lawyers, including senior advocates K Parasaran and CS Vaidyanathan and advocate Saurabh Shamsheri, will appear for Lord Ram Lalla, the deity. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will represent the Uttar Pradesh government.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Anoop George Chaudhari, Rajeev Dhavan and Sushil Jain will represent other parties, including the Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara.

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, an intervenor in the matter, had attempted to raise the issue of fundamental right of religion of the Hindus under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Many of the original plantiffs and defendants in the matter, including Mohd Hashim, who was the first person to take the matter to the apex court, have died.

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • kushal kumar, Panchkula- Haryana- India

    Wed, Dec 6 2017

    The Ayodhya case about Ram Mandir issue has been adjourned to 8 February 2017 by SC suggesting that a judgement could be expected on the issue in early 2018. Relevant to this development , readers may be interested to know this Vedic astrology writer’s predictions in article - “ Astrologically speaking , some highlights for India in coming year 2018” - published in on 19 October , 2017. The related text from the said article reads as : - “ The year 2018 looks to be bringing to focus themes of political , religious or spiritual nature for a heightened or sharp analysis or discussion. Such analysis or discussion could pave way for new enactments or judicial pronouncements having far reaching significance or value covering issues related to women , religion and political class”.

    DisAgree Agree Reply Report Abuse

  • Vincent Rodrigues, Bengaluru/Katapadi

    Wed, Dec 6 2017

    This is a quite complicated issue and we may not have any decision from the court in the nearest future

    DisAgree Agree [1] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Lock Judges, Lawyers & everyone related to this case in court room & release them after Final Verdict ...

    DisAgree [2] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • SMR, karkala

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Babri Masjid demolition case should be heard first before any title deed. The nation has already seen 5,000 death in this blood bath with the losses of more than Rs10,000 crores.
    Instead of facing the gallows the accused are rewarded with the highest honour of the nation is insult to the dead souls.
    Any verdict without the basis of authentic Hindu holy scripture 'Ramayana' mentioning the exact location of Lord Rama birth place is arbitrary of the judgement.
    Jai Hind

    DisAgree [5] Agree [14] Reply Report Abuse

  • sri_elder, Karkala

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Did Babur built mosque on empty land?
    The issue came in soon after Brits defeated Mugals in 1850 ..
    So it was not new issue..
    First prove mosque was indeed built on empty land

    DisAgree [10] Agree [9] Reply Report Abuse

  • sri_elder, Karkala

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Beyond any doubt the disputed site should go to grand temple construction..
    Hindu epic Ramayana mentions about Ayodya and Rama's existence..
    These epics written around 1500BC or 1500 years before Jesus Christ was born.
    So it means temple was existing there for long long time before Babur invasion... And destruction memories transferred to people generation after generation. So courts need to take all these points into account....

    DisAgree [14] Agree [9] Reply Report Abuse

  • M.S.D, Mangalore

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Dear Brother,

    Don't waste time here by reading such news.!!

    Altu faltu problem will be solved after our death only it means during the time of our Grand children's.!!

    DisAgree [2] Agree [5] Reply Report Abuse

  • m, Mangalore

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Also Allahabad High court has ruled that there was a temple below the mosque.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • Syed Mohiudin, Iruvail/Riyadh

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Verdict as per the Record.....Owner of the Land.

    DisAgree [4] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • mohan sr., Mangalore

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    This issue will never end another 100 years....

    DisAgree [3] Agree [10] Reply Report Abuse

  • PINTO, Doha/Qatar

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Even BJP don't want the Ayodhya issue to be resolved . The reason is they can show the construction of Ram Mandir in their 2019 Lok Sabha election manifesto too.They are doing that in every election since 1991..

    DisAgree [5] Agree [15] Reply Report Abuse

  • santhu birve, Mumbai/Udupi

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    verdict will go in favor of' LORD RAMA' devotees.

    DisAgree [8] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • Rajesh, Udupi

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Built a Cricket stadium there and let all cast creed and religion people play the sport which is advocated by 125 crore people !

    DisAgree [13] Agree [14] Reply Report Abuse

  • Ramesh S, MANGALORE

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    ..this SIBBAL is every where..whether its ISHRAT, TRIPPLE TALAQ,RAM SETU, DIWALI PATAKA..there is some kind consensus coming up..both community showing some maturity, some feelers..but look at this Lawyer Congress leader..He says case should be adjourned until next General election!!..are serious, do you want it to prolong it..already one generation gone, you want it pass on to next generation like Kashmir!! or minus, SC must end this case soon as possible..sick of this Congress..

    DisAgree [11] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • Syed Mohiudin, Iruvail/Riyadh

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Waiting for PEACEFUL & GENUINE Verdict.

    DisAgree Agree [6] Reply Report Abuse

  • Subhash Pai, Mangalore

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Build a Multi Specialty Hospital for the better health of the nation.

    DisAgree [15] Agree [15] Reply Report Abuse

  • David Pais, Mangalore

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    i second it for a multi-speciality hospital 4 allllll ......

    DisAgree [6] Agree [14] Reply Report Abuse

  • sri_elder, Karkala

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Oho oho.. You need only temple site for that... No other sites worth for hospital?

    DisAgree [10] Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • ashok, mangalore

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Verdict go to center government side(100%)

    DisAgree [10] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • sri_elder, Karkala

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    Matter is very clear. The site belongs to Dasharatha's son Rama..

    DisAgree [15] Agree [24] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Tue, Dec 5 2017

    All we get is 'Tarikh Pe Tarikh' ...

    DisAgree [4] Agree [18] Reply Report Abuse

Leave a Comment

Title : Ayodhya dispute: Set up 7-judge bench, says Sibal; SC defers hearing to Feb 8


You have 2000 characters left.


Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will be held responsible.

Security Validation

Enter the characters in the image