Ayodhya case: Won't fast track hearing, you deceived us, SC tells Swamy


New Delhi, Mar 31 (PTI): The Supreme Court today refused to accord an early hearing on a batch of civil appeals pertaining to the Ayodhya Ram Temple-Babri Masjid case.

During the hearing, a bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar told BJP leader Subramanian Swamy that the court was made to believe that he was a party to the ongoing litigation.

This had led to the Chief Justice of India offering to mediate between the parties to the litigation, the court said.

"You did not tell us that you were not a party to the case, we only got to know that from the press," the bench said.

Swamy, however, said that he had made it clear that his Fundamental Right to worship was affected.

"My Right to Pray is affected by the pending case and I had filed an intervening application," Swamy said.

The bench then said that it was not going to fast track the matter.

Earlier on March 21 the apex court had suggested an out-of-court settlement to the lingering Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute at Ayodhya, observing that issues of "religion and sentiments" can be best resolved through talks.

Chief Justice Khehar had also offered to mediate even as the bench headed by him suggested that the parties to the dispute adopt a "give a bit and take a bit" approach for a meaningful and sincere negotiations to resolve the vexatious issue.

The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court had in 2010 ruled for a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres area at the site in Uttar Pradesh.

The three-judge bench, by a majority of 2:1, had said the land be partitioned equally among three parties, Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the 'Ram Lalla'.

On February 26 last year, the apex court had allowed Swamy to intervene in the pending matters relating to the Ayodhya title dispute with his plea seeking construction of

Ram temple at the site of the demolished disputed structure.

The BJP leader had moved the plea for a direction to allow construction of the Ram temple at Ayodhya at the disputed site and claimed that under the practices prevalent in Islamic countries, a mosque could be shifted to any other place for public purposes like constructing A road, whereas a temple once constructed cannot be touched.

He had also sought directions to expedite the disposal of several petitions challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict of three-way division of the disputed site at Ayodhya on September 30, 2010.

The dispute before the court was whether the 2.7 acres of disputed land on which the Babri Masjid stood before it was demolished on December 6, 1992, belongs to the Sunni Central Waqf Board or to the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha.

  

Top Stories

Comment on this article

  • Alwyn Crasta, Mangaluru/Bengaluru

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    Why do we need politicians to solve this problem?

    Isn't it they, who have created the problem in the first place???

    DisAgree [1] Agree [10] Reply Report Abuse

  • Swamy, Mangalore

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    This is nothing but a everlasting bargaining chip kept alive exclusively for contraversial debate till eternity. This is BJP development to spend recreational pass time. Even SC is party to this pass time game.

    DisAgree Agree [8] Reply Report Abuse

  • Dr Mohan Prabhu, LL.D, QC, Mangalore (Kankanady)/Ottawa, Canada

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    There can be a solution to the ongoing dispute. There are examples where individual Hindus, Muslims and Christians pray in a small shrine which has three separate entrances ,near Dadar Portuguese Church (at least there used to be one when I lived in Mumbai), and there are examples of common prayer rooms in airport lounges. More importantly, in Israel there is a common wall on one side of which the Jews pray and on the other the Muslims pray. If these two arch enemies have compromised on their historical heritage of temple ownership, why not Hindus and Muslims who once had common ancestors. I hope the Supreme Court would look at those examples and find a mutually acceptable solution.

    DisAgree [3] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • G R PRABHUJI, Mangalore

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    It is better to invite Hindus and Muslims to make prayers alternative days. No dispute.

    DisAgree [1] Agree [17] Reply Report Abuse

  • Emi, Brighton

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    THIS ALSO WONT WORK. BECAUSE MUSLIMS PRAY EVERYDAY 5 TIMES.

    DisAgree [2] Agree [11] Reply Report Abuse

  • Rajesh, Udupi

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    Build a Cricket Stadium.....

    DisAgree [7] Agree [14] Reply Report Abuse

  • Emi, Brighton

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    THAT WILL BE ALSO A PROBLEM, THEY MIGHT NOT LET MUSLIMS AND CHRISTAINS TO PLAY.

    DisAgree [5] Agree [17] Reply Report Abuse

  • m h rashid, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    The simple solution is to construct a hospital in disputed land.

    DisAgree [6] Agree [21] Reply Report Abuse

  • Emi, Brighton

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    THAT WILL ALSO BE PROBLEM. SOME HINDUS WONT LET MUSLIMS TO ENTER INTO THE HOSPITAL. NO NEED BUILT ANYTHING.

    DisAgree [4] Agree [12] Reply Report Abuse

  • Logical Indian, Kudla

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    Easy Monthly Installment : Settle in UK dear.. good for you..anyhow you are good at......

    DisAgree Agree [2] Reply Report Abuse

  • Jossey Saldanha, Mumbai

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    No one is interested because once a temple is built BJP's FEKUGIRI chapter is closed .

    DisAgree [6] Agree [29] Reply Report Abuse

  • Emi, Brighton

    Fri, Mar 31 2017

    BEST SOLUTION IS TO KEEP THE GROUND CLEAR. NOTHING TO BE CONSTRUCTED. IF U BUILD TEMPLE. TOMM SOMEBODY WILL DEMOLISH TO BUILT CHURCH OR MOSQUE.

    RIOTS MAY HAPPEN , TOO MANY HATISM WILL CREATE BETWEEN HINDUS AND MUSLIMS

    DisAgree [4] Agree [21] Reply Report Abuse


Leave a Comment

Title: Ayodhya case: Won't fast track hearing, you deceived us, SC tells Swamy



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

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. Daijiworld.com 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 Daijiworld.com be held responsible.