Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!
SHARE:
- Taking its own time : The Supreme Court refused to fix any deadline until January 2019 for hearing the Ayodhya case. Thereby, it was clear that no final verdict was expected before the 2019 Lok Sabha election.
- Welcome and necessary : This was a good move as any verdict would have polarised the nation.
- The chain of events :
- Allahabad H.C. verdict arrived in 2010, with a three-way split
- Sept. 2018 - 3-judge bench of S.C. refused to refer the matter to 7-judge bench
- Oct. 2018 - date for next hearing was set, raising hopes of an early judgment and path being cleared for Ram temple construction at Ayodhya
- Putting it all off : It is pretty clear that the SC bench led by CJI Gogoi delayed everything to avoid any kind of polarisation due to exploitation of religious sentiments of common masses. It is a pragmatic move.
- Not just a title dispute : Although the law may thing it is just a title dispute, its potential to divide the Indian society is immense.
- Bring an ordinance! There are angry and upset voices clamouring for an ordinance to help build the Ram temple. The judiciary has to ensure that the dispute remains within its jurisdiction only. Why? Any other solution will not command the due legitimacy that this issue needs.
- 24 years ago : The S.C. had refused to answer a Presidential reference on the question "whether a temple pre-existed the demolished Masjid". It instead restored the title suit and made the govt. the receiver of land in Ayodhya. Govt. has to hand over the land to those who win the suit.
- A ten-year moratorium : The Prime Minister himself had asked for a 10-yr moratorium on all communal and sectarian issues, on 15-August, 2014. So let us not have a pre-emptive law in favour of a temple.
- 1949: Idols of Ram Lalla are placed surreptitiously under the central dome.
- 1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files first suit in Faizabad civil court for rights to perform pooja to Ram Lalla.
- 1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files a suit for continuation of pooja and keeping idols in the structure.
- 1959: Nirmohi Akhara files third suit, seeking direction to hand over charge of the disputed site. U.P. Sunni Central Wakf Board files fourth suit in 1961 for declaration and possession and fifth in 1989 in the name of Ram Lalla Virajman for declaration and possession.
- 1986: District judge orderes locks be removed. Site opened for Hindu worshippers.
- 1989: The four suits pending were transferred to the High Court.
- 1991: U.P. govt. acquires land around the structure for convenience of devotees who attend Ram Lalla darshan.
- December 1992: Babri Masjid demolished by a frenzied mob of karsevaks. Two FIRs filed in the Babri Masjid demolition case. Crime no. 197 deals with actual “demolition of the mosque by karsevaks.” Crime no. 198 named L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and others for ‘communal’ speeches before the demolition.
- 1993: Govt. takes over 67 acres of land around the area, seeks SC's opinion on whether there existed a Hindu place of worship before the structure was built.
- October, 1993: CBI files a composite charge sheet and accuses Advani and other leaders of ‘conspiracy’
- 1994: Case goes back to Lucknow Bench of HC, suits heard again from 1996.
- 1994: A five-judge Supreme Court bench says that a mosque was not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and that namaz could be offered anywhere and hence, “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”.
- May 4, 2001: Special Judge S.K. Shukla drops conspiracy charge against 13 accused, including Mr. Advani and Kalyan Singh. Bifurcates Crimes 197 and 198.
- May 20, 2010: Advani, others absolved of conspiracy charges. Allahabad HC upholds May 4, 2001 special court order, dismisses the CBI’s revision petition for a direction to proceed with the conspiracy charge against Mr. Advani and others.
- September 30, 2010: Allahabad HC awards two-thirds of Ayodhya site to Hindu parties, one-third to Waqf Board.
- February, 2011: CBI moves Supreme Court. Argues that “the actual demolition of the Babri Masjid and the continuous assault on media persons form a single connected transaction and can well be a concerted conspiracy”.
- May 9, 2011: Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court verdict on Ayodhya dispute.
- May 2014: BJP-NDA assumes power at Centre
- December 25, 2014: Oldest litigant in Babri Masjid case passes away. Mohammad Farooq, a resident of Ayodhya, was one of the seven main litigants from Muslim side in the 1949 Babri Masjid case.
- March 6, 2017: SC indicates it may revive conspiracy charge and order a joint trial of crimes 197 and 198.
- March 21, 2017: Suggesting an out-of-court rapprochement among rival parties in the 68-year-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar advised peace negotiations instead of a pitched court battle, even offering help to settle the fight amicably.
- March 23, 2017: A Supreme Court Bench of Justices P.C. Ghose and Rohinton Nariman posted for detailed hearing the CBI appeal against the dropping of the criminal conspiracy charge against veteran BJP leader L.K. Advani and other top party leaders after two weeks.
- April 6, 2017: The Supreme Court indicated that it will use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer the Babri Masjid demolition related trial in Rae Bareilly against top BJP leaders L.K. Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi to Lucknow, where a CBI court is hearing conspiracy and other serious criminal charges against "lakhs of unknown kar sevaks" for the actual act of razing down the 15th century mosque.
- April 19, 2017: The Supreme Court revived conspiracy charges against L.K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and 13 others in the 25-year-old Babri Masjid demolition cases.
- May 30, 2017: L.K. Advani Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti and Vinay Katiyar charged with criminal conspiracy in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
- August 8, 2017: Uttar Pradesh Shia Central Waqf Board tells Supreme Court that they would settle for a masjid located in a “Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the most revered place of birth of Maryada Purushottam Sri Ram.” They tell the Court that the Babri Masjid was a Shia waqf (endowment) and their Sunni counterpart, who have been at the frontline of the 70-year-old title dispute, were mere interlopers led by “hardliners, fanatics and non-believers” who do not want an amicable settlement with the Hindu sects involved.
- August 11, 2017: Supreme Court schedules hearing of 13 appeals in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute on December 5, 2017, the eve of the 25th anniversary of the demolition of the 15th century mosque.
- February 2018: Hearing re-commence in the Supreme Court of India
- September 2018: A three-judge Supreme Court Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer ruled that a larger bench need not be referred to for the 1994 Ismail Faruqui judgment. {In 1994, a five-judge Supreme Court bench had held that a mosque was not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and that namaz could be offered anywhere and hence, “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”.}
- September 2019: After several months of regular hearing in Supreme Court, the parties expressed a desire to revert back to mediation and negotiations, which the SC allowed. So both hearing and mediation were to continue in parallel from there on.
* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.
COMMENTS