No announcement yet.

The Supreme Court Is Delivering Ayodhya Verdict Today

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Supreme Court Is Delivering Ayodhya Verdict Today

    The Supreme Court is going to deliver the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case of Ayodhya on Saturday at 10.30 am. After completing the hearing in the case, the apex court had reserved its decision and since then, it was speculated that the decision will come before the retirement of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. Justice Gogoi is slated to retire on November 17. Though the court can sit any day, hear the case and also deliver its verdict, November 17 is a Sunday and usually, the verdict is an important case is not announced on a holiday.

    Besides, the last working day of Justice Gogoi is November 15. This had led to speculation that the verdict of the Ayodhya case could be heard by a bench headed by Justice Gogoi on November 14, or November 15. Normally, if the court announces a verdict, the next day, the plaintiff or one of the defendants request the court to review the decision again, and the process generally takes one or two days.

    It is believed that this sudden announcement is a part of a strategy to keep the anti-social at bay, so that they do not get any opportunity to prepare for any kind of conspiracy, ahead of the announcement on this sensitive, emotional and faith-related matter. Meanwhile, all preparations have been put in place to ensure peace in the entire state of Uttar Pradesh, across the country in general, and Ayodhya in particular. The Centre, as well as the state governments, have reviewed the security arrangements.
    Web results

    Chief Justice Gogoi has also met the acting chief secretary of Uttar, Pradesh Rajendra Tiwari and director general of police OP Singh to discuss the security arrangements in the state ahead of the announcement of Ayodhya verdict.

  • #2
    Supreme Court Full Report On Ayodhya Verdict

    Nine years after the Allahabad High Court ruling, the Supreme Court on Saturday ruled that the Hindus would get the entire disputed 2.77 acres in Ayodhya. This is the land on which the now demolished Babri Masjid once stood. The Muslims will get alternate land either in the surplus 67 acres acquired in and around the disputed structure by the central govt or any other prominent place. The entire 2.77 acres will remain with the receiver and will be handed over to a trust to be formed in 3 months to build a temple. The Nirmohi Akhara is not the sebait, the court held. Instead it will get to be a member of the trust. The court said that it was not ruling on faith but the fact that Muslim possession over the inner courtyard was always contested by the Hindus who continued to pray at the spot. A bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi delivered the verdict. He was sitting alongside CJI designate S.A. Bobde, and Justices D.Y. Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S.A. Nazeer. The verdict was unanimous. The Allahabad High Court had in 2010 partitioned the land between Hindus and Muslims in a 2:1 ratio.

    The deity, Ram Lalla, and the sebait, the Nirmohi Akhara, had got two shares. The Uttar Pradesh Sunni central Wakf Board got a third of the share. The land on which the now demolished Babri Masjid structure once stood went to the Ram Lalla. The Ram Chabutra and the Sita Rasoi went to the Akhara. The Muslims were to get a share after adjustment by metes and bounds for exit and entry into each person's share. Both parties were unhappy with the judgement and had appealed to the top court. The court had stayed the judgement. The issue remained pending till BJP leader Subramanian Swamy -- though not a party -- pressed for a hearing. Former CJI J.S. Khehar then took it up and even offered to personally mediate between the two sides. He later backtracked when he realised Swamy was not a party to the case. His successor former CJI Dipak Misra tried to hear the case but it was stymied by a plea by the Muslim side which insisted on a hearing to reexamine the Ismail Faruqui judgement which it said would prejudice its claims over the Babri Masjid. The court eventually refused to reopen the case which had held that mosques were not essential to worship in Islam. The CJI Misra had set up a three judge bench to hear the title suit. But CJI Gogoi rescinded that judicial order to set up a five judge bench to hear it. The case was heard for over 40 working days, possibly one of the longest in the court. The Hindus had claimed that they had been continously worshipping at the spot where the masjid stood, a claim contested by the Muslims who claimed that a mosque stood on the spot since 1528. The Hindus had also claimed that a temple was destroyed to build a mosque.


    • #3
      Nearly 90 people have been arrested and action has been taken against over 8,000 social media posts as authorities maintained a tight vigil in the temple town and elsewhere in the country in the wake of the Ayodhya verdict. Meanwhile, Hindu and Muslim religious leaders exhorted people to maintain communal harmony after a meeting with National Security Advisor Ajit Doval on Sunday.


      • #4
        Sabarimala Verdict LIVE Updates: The Supreme Court today referred to a larger bench the petitions seeking review of the apex court’s 2018 judgment allowing entry of women between the ages of 10 and 50 into the Sabarimala temple.


        • #5
          AIMPLB, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind to seek review of Ayodhya verdict

          A review petition will be filed against the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind announced on Sunday, stressing that mosque land cannot be given up as per the Sharia.

          The Jamiat panel observed that the judgment was against the Muslim parties and it was not a final judgment as the option of reviewing it is available under the Constitution of India, the statement said.

          The Supreme Court, in its verdict in the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi title case on November 9, said the entire 2.77 acres of disputed land should be handed over to the deity Ram Lalla, who was one of the three litigants.

          The five-judge Constitution bench also directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board in Ayodhya to build a mosque.

          "Justice was not done fully as Muslims cannot shift the mosque, therefore, accepting an alternative land for the mosque is absolutely out of the question," Madani said.

          The Jamiat panel found that in its more than 1,000-page judgment, the five-member apex court bench under Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi accepted most of the evidence and arguments in favour of the Babri mosque, the statement said.

          "While the legal option is available, there is also Sharia obligation to defend the masjid till the last breath," the expert panel said.

          It underlined that the Supreme Court made some observations that cleared many issues regarding the construction of the Babri masjid.

          "For example, the mosque was not built after demolishing a Ram temple and the ASI report also amply confirmed that the Babri mosque was not built after razing down any temple there," the Jamiat statement said.

          No archaeological evidence of temple under the mosque was found, it said.

          Both the courts -- the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Court -- had accepted this fact that idols were put inside the Babri mosque illegally, in 1949, till then the five-time prayers were being offered in the mosque, and its demolition was "an illegal act", the Jamiat said.

          "It is perplexing that how the mosque was given to the Hindu parties despite Muslims having offered namaz more than 90 years there? What does it mean and this is beyond everybody's comprehension?" the Muslim body said.

          The Jamiat panel quoted retired Supreme Court Judge Ashok K Ganguly's discontent with the apex court's decision of giving the land to the Centre for the construction of a Ram temple and said that the minorities have been "wronged", the statement said.

          "It is also perplexing that the bench did not accept the deity Ram Lalla as the owner of the land but handed over the mosque to the Hindu parties," Jamiat said.

          "If we assumed that the court had used Article 142 of Constitution which gives it special powers, for delivering this judgment, it was not based on merit and evidence and defied all reasons and logic," Madani said.

          Article 142 of the Constitution ordains to deliver judgment on the basis of evidence and proof, he said.

          Madani, who attended a meeting of the AIMPLB in Lucknow, told reporters that it was not a "prestige issue". "This is a matter of Sharia. We can neither give the mosque, nor take anything in lieu of it," he added.

          It’s better to give than to receive. Especially advice


          • #6
            Muslim Opinion Divided Over Aimplb's Decision To File Review Petition

            As soon as it was decided in the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's meeting that the board will file a review petition in the Supreme Court against its Ayodhya judgment, reactions started coming in the favor and against the decision.

            When spoke with the religious leaders and intellectuals about their reaction to the decision of AIMPLB, most of them said the Supreme Court verdict should be accepted.
            Mufti Mudassar Ali Khan Qadri told that, before the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment, all Islamic organizations and clerics had said clearly that whatever verdict is given, it will be acceptable to everyone.

            "If the Supreme Court gives a decision in the favor of a Hindu temple, then the Muslims will stay calm and if the decision goes in the favor of the mosque, then they will thank the Supreme Court," he said.
            He said that filing a review petition will have no benefit as the Supreme Court has already given a decision in the favor of the Hindus despite accepting that the place belonged to the Muslims till 1949 and the mosque was demolished in 1992 by the Hindus.
            "It appears that the Supreme Court has decided that the dispute was only about a piece of land and that is why the Muslims have been given twice the area of the disputed land in compensation to the land given to the Hindus," he said.
            Mufti said that the board's refusal to accept the five-acre land is wrong as the disputed land belonged to the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board and not to the AIMPLB.

            Muslim Vikas Parishad Chairman Sami Aghai supported the AIMPLB's decision and said that the board's decision is also the decision of the Muslims of India as the "board represents the Muslims of this country".
            Former AH Inter College Principal Shamshuddin said the people who are supporting the AIMPLB's decision are the same people who were in favor of accepting whatever the Supreme Court decides in the Ayodhya case.


            • #7
              Members Can Discuss Review Petition In November 26 Meeting, Says Sunni Board Chief

              Amid reports of differences in the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board over the filing of a review petition in the Ayodhya case, Muslim body chairman Zufar Farooqi said members can discuss the issue in their November 26 meeting.

              Amid reports of differences in the UP Sunni Central Waqf Board over the filing of a review petition in the Ayodhya case, Muslim body chairman Zufar Farooqi said members can discuss the issue in their November 26 meeting.
              "I have been authorized to take a decision on behalf of the board but if any member has an objection to it, he can raise it in the meeting scheduled for November 26 here," Farooqui said.
              The Sunni Central Waqf Board will take a decision on whether to accept land for building a mosque in Ayodhya at its meeting on November 26.

              Earlier, Farooqui had said that they would abide by the apex court decision and would not file a review petition.

              Responding to media reports about some members of the board favoring the review petition, Farooqi, who has opposed the suggestion, said he had been authorized through a resolution to take a decision on behalf of the board.
              "But most decisions are taken on the basis of the majority view and if there is any member who has any objection, it can be raised in the meeting," Farooqi said.

              Meanwhile, the All-India Shia Personal Law Board has supported the AIMPLB stand of filing a review petition and declining the offer of five acres for the construction of a mosque.

              Their spokesman Maulana Yasoob Abbas said the Shia board was with the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board in every manner.


              • #8
                Sri Sri On Muslim Personal Board Seeking Review Of Ayodhya Verdict

                The spiritual leader, who was part of the Supreme Court-appointed mediation panel in the Ayodhya case, said the matter would have been solved long back, had one side not been insistent on building a mosque at the disputed site.

                Terming the decision of All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind to seek a review of the recent Ayodhya verdict as "double standard", spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar said Hindus and Muslims should move on and work towards strengthening the economy.

                The spiritual leader, who was part of the Supreme Court-appointed mediation panel in the Ayodhya case, said the matter would have been solved long back, had one side not been insistent on building a mosque at the disputed site.
                Speaking on the current financial crisis in India, he said a lot needed to be done to push the economy forward.

                "Yes, I am happy with the Ayodhya verdict. I have been telling this since 2003 that both communities can work on it... build mandir on one side and masjid on the other. But yeh zidd ki masjid wahi banana hai ka koi Matlab nahi tha (stubbornness to build mosque at the disputed site was meaningless)," Sri Sri Ravi Shankar told PTI in an exclusive interview here.
                Sri Sri was in the city to address a gathering at Netaji Indoor Stadium, where he also announced his new nationwide program "Vyakti Vikas se Rashtra Vikas" (from development of individual to development of the country).

                He hailed the apex court verdict as a "very good decision to resolve the long-standing dispute".

                A special bench of Supreme Court, in its unanimous verdict on November 9, cleared the way for the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site at Ayodhya and directed the Centre to allot a five-acre plot to the Sunni Waqf Board for building a mosque.
                In what is assumed as one of the most-important and most-anticipated judgments in India's history, the court put an end to the over-a-century-old dispute that was harming the social fabric of the nation.

                When asked about the AIMPLB planning to file a review petition, the spiritual leader said not everybody could be pleased with a decision.


                • #9

                  No need to give 5-acre plot to Muslims: Hindu Mahasabha to file review petition against Ayodhya verdict

                  In the first review petition from the Hindu side, Hindu Mahasabha is moving the court seeking review of the court's decision to allocate an alternative 5-acre plot to the Muslim side to build a mosque.


                  Unconfigured PHP Module