New Delhi, October 29 (IANS) In a move that could see the Ayodhya issue not decided before the Lok Sabha elections, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the listing of the Ram Janmabhoomi title suit matter for an appropriate bench that will fix the dates in January 2019 for the hearing of a batch of petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict trifurcating the disputed site.
During a brief hearing, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph gave its decision on the petitions challenging the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling by which the disputed site in Ayodhya was divided into three parts -- for Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the original Muslim litigant.
"We have our own priorities. Whether the case will come in January, February or March, it will be for the appropriate bench to decide," CJI Gogoi said as a lawyer urged the court to decide on the dates when the hearing on challenge to the High Court judgment will take place.
The listing of the matter for January could prolong the hearing in the case for a few months -- by when the country would be in election mode due to general elections due in April-May 2019.
On September 27, the top court bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, along with Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, by a 2:1 majority rejected the plea that the challenge to the 2010 verdict be heard by a bench of five judges.
It was contended by the Muslim litigants before the three-judge bench headed by then Chief Justice Misra that the challenge to the 2010 verdict should be heard by a larger bench as the High court had relied on 1994 apex court judgment that said that mosque was not essential to Islam for offering Namaz prayers.
Rejecting the plea for hearing by a larger five-judge bench, then Chief Justice Misra and his colleagues on September 27 directed that the matter be listed for October 29 hearing.
Enact law in Parliament's Winter Session to construct Ram temple in Ayodhya: VHP
New Delhi, Oct 29 (IANS) The VHP on Monday demanded that the central government enact a law in Parliament's Winter Session for constructing a Ram temple at Ayodhya.
"The Supreme Court has once again adjourned the hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi appeals to the year 2019. This fortifies our stand that a solution is not in eternally waiting for the hearing of the appeals. We reiterate our demand for enacting a law in Parliament for construction of a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya," VHP's Working President Alok Kumar told reporters.
"The Winter Session of Parliament is ahead and this can be done," he added.
Kumar's remarks came soon after the Supreme Court directed the listing of the Ayodhya title suit matter in January 2019 before an appropriate bench.
Asked about the VHP's stand if the government fails to bring a legislation in Parliament for constructing a Ram temple, he said the issue will be placed before 'sants' (religious leaders) at the Kumbh Mela at Allahabad in January.
"We believe that this government is a government of Ram bhakts. The BJP passed a resolution for a legislation in 1989 in the Palampur session. They had been our associates in this fight. We look forward to them implementing their own manifesto. Somehow, if some other situation develops, we will place the matter before the Dharm Sansan on January 30 at Kumbh," he said.
Kumar also warned of intensifying the VHP campaign for a legislation if the government does not act. "We will meet all the MPs to impress upon them (the need for a law," he said.
The VHP has convened a two-day Dharm Sansad in January in Allahabd to discuss the Ram temple issue.
Asked about opposition allegations that the BJP and other saffron organisations are raking up the issue because of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Kumar said that the matter was getting delayed in the court and the wait was not worth it.
"Earlier, the bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra was hearing the matter. Therefore, the sants, who had been for the Dharm Sansad at Udupi, had decided to wait for this bench to deliver judgement. Justice Mishra retired in October and therefore we found that wait was not worth it.
"The new CJI has also adjourned the matter. The Supreme Court, which at times sit at nights to hear matters, has somehow avoided hearing this appeal of very great public importance. Therefore, other lawful ways of demanding a legislation have been preferred," he said.
