With the Sangh Parivar mounting pressure for early disposal of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title case, the Supreme Court on Friday said an “appropriate Bench” on January 10 will fix the date of hearing. The SC is to be set up for hearing the matter on a batch of petitions.
“Further orders in the matter will be passed on January 10 by the appropriate Bench, as may be constituted,” said a Bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SK Kaul. The CJI passed this order even before senior advocates Harish Salve and Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for different parties, get the opportunity to make submission. The hearing finished in 30 seconds.
After it passed the order, the Bench came across a fresh plea which demanded that the SC should hear the Ayodhya land dispute matter on an urgent and day-to-day basis.
The SC dismissed the PIL filed by advocate Harinath Ram, who had submitted that in view of the inordinate delay in the adjudication of the matter and in the prevailing sentiments surrounding the Ayodhya land dispute, matter should be given a hearing on priority.
The Bench in its order said: “Having heard the petitioner, who is appearing in person and upon perusing the relevant material, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.”
Now, a three-member Bench will be set up for taking forward the Ayodhya land dispute case in which as many as 14 appeals were filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The apex court on October 29 had fixed the matter in the first week of January before the “appropriate Bench”. Later, an application was moved for according an urgent hearing by advancing the date, but the top court had refused the plea, saying it had already passed an order on October 29 relating to the hearing of the matter.
The plea for early hearing was moved by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM) which is one of the respondents in the appeal filed by legal heirs of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants in the case.
A three-judge bench of the top court had on September 27 last year, by 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution Bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.