Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: On Day 1 of the day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute, Nirmohi Akhara, told the 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ that Muslims were not allowed to enter the temple gate since 1934 and it is in their possession since then.

Senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara, told the bench that the suit was filed by his client for the belonging, possession and management rights.

“The dome structure in the inner courtyard belongs to the Nirmohi Akhara. They have been wrongfully deprived of the charge and management of the temple,”

The counsel asserted that the inner courtyard, which includes Sita Rasoi, Bhandar Grih, and a place known as “Janam Asthan”, are in the possession of the Akhara.

“The idols were placed inside the mosque on the intervening night of December 22-23, 1949. The dispute for Nirmohi Akhara is for the inner courtyard and not the outer courtyard,”

He further contended that the claim over the disputed land was filed by the Nirmohi Akhara in 1934, whereas Sunni Waqf Board filed the suit in 1961.

Earlier in the day, the Court refused live streaming or audio/video recording of the proceedings due to non-feasibility of the same at the moment. KN Govindacharya had, on 05.08.2019, sought live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. He submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered. Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public are being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A five-judge constitution bench is conducting a day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya title dispute case, after it had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.

Fourteen appeals are pending before the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which ordered equal division of the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The 16th-century Babri Masjid was demolished on December 6, 1992.

(Source: ANI)


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court:  The Court has agreed to consider the live streaming of the proceeding in the Ayodhya land dispute case after deliberation and institutional decision-making.

A bench headed by Justice S A Bobde said that it would look into the administrative side of the matter after senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing on behalf of former RSS idealogue KN Govindacharya, mentioned the petition
before it, seeking live streaming and recording of the proceedings in the Ayodhya case. He submitted that for the time being, at least the recording of proceedings can be done and at the later stage, live streaming could be considered. Govindacharya, in his petition, asserted that the public are being denied their right to access to justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The plea stated

“live streaming of the Ayodhya case is required considering the fact that in the absence of live streaming of proceedings of this Court, the public are also being denied their right to know as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

It further said,

“This Court has already held that ‘right of access to justice flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution or be it the concept of justice at the doorstep, would be meaningful only if the public get access to the proceedings as it would unfold before the courts and in particular, opportunity to witness live proceedings in respect of matters having an impact on the public at large or on a section of people,”

The Supreme Court had on August 2 observed that since the mediation panel on Ayodhya matter has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter, it will hold a day-to-day hearing in the case from August 6.


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: After the the Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla led Mediation Committee submitted the mediation report before the  5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ, the Court observed that the mediation panel has failed to achieve any final settlement in the matter and it would, hence, hold day-to-day hearing in the Ayodhya dispute from August 6.

“The mediation proceedings have not resulted in any final settlement. We, therefore, have to proceed with the hearing of the cases/appeals, which will commence on and from 6.8.2019.”

The Court had, on March 8, referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored Mediation. It said:

“Notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter we are of the view that an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation.”

The 3-member committee also consisted of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Senior Advocate Sriram Panchu.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 958, order dated 02.08.2019]


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has asked the Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla led Mediation Committee to submit the outcome of the mediation proceedings as on 31.7.2019 by 1.8.2019.

 

Pursuant to the order dated 11.7.2019, Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla had submitted a report before the Court but since the Court had ordered that the proceedings of mediation will confidential, the bench refused to disclose the contents of the report. However, taking into account what has been brought to its notice by the said report, the Court fixed the daily hearing of the cases from 2.8.2019.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 844, order dated 11.07.2019]


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has asked Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, the Chairman of the Mediation Committee, to inform it the progress of mediation till date and the stage at which the said process is presently at, latest by 18th July, 2019. The Court said that it will accordingly pass further orders on July 18.

It also made clear,

“if this Court comes to a conclusion that, having regard to the report of Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, the mediation proceedings should be ordered to be concluded, the Court will do so and order for commencement of the hearing of the appeals before it, tentatively, on and from 25th July, 2019, which hearings, if required, will be conducted on day-to-day basis.”

On March 8, the Court had referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored Mediation.

On May 7, Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, a former Judge of this Court, submitted a report requesting for extension of time to complete the proceedings. Time was granted by this Court by its order dated 10th May, 2019, up to 15th August, 2019.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 844, order dated 11.07.2019]


Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the Ayodhya  title dispute case, has filed an application in the Supreme Court, opposing the Centre’s plea to return to the original owners excess land acquired around the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.

“The government cannot get back the land to give it to who they want. Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas cannot be given a majority of the land,”

The lawyer appearing for the Akhara said that the acquisition of the land by the government had led to the destruction of several temples managed by the Akhara. The Akhara has pleaded to the court to decide the title dispute.

The central government had in January this year filed a petition seeking modification of the court’s 2003 order to allow it to return the “excess/superfluous land” out of the 67.703 acres acquired in Ayodhya to its original owners including Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas. The government had been directed by the court to maintain “status quo” with regard to entire land including the non-disputed acquired areas.

(Source: ANI)


Also read

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has referred the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, famously known as the Ayodhya Dispute, to a Court-monitored Mediation. It said:

“Notwithstanding the lack of consensus between the parties in the matter we are of the view that an attempt should be made to settle the dispute by mediation.”

Stating that there is no legal impediment to making a reference to mediation for a possible settlement of the disputes arising out of the appeals, the Court said that whether Order 1 rule 8 CPC and Order XXIII rule 3-B of the CPC would apply in the event parties arrive at a settlement/compromise in the mediation proceedings is a matter left open to be decided at the appropriate stage.

Panel of Mediators:

  1. Justice Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India – Chairman
  2. Sri Sri Ravi Shankar – Member
  3. Shri Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate – Member

The members are at liberty to co-opt other members of the Panel.

Where and how:

The proceedings will take place and Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to provide mediators all the facilities in Faizabad. Mediators can seek further legal assistance as and when required. The proceedings will be held in-camera.

Time-frame:

The mediation process is expected to commence within a week and the mediators have to send a report of the progress of the mediation to the Court within four weeks of the commencement of the process.

Confidentiality of the proceedings:

The Court said that the mediation proceedings should be conducted with utmost confidentiality so as to ensure its success which can only be safeguarded by directing that the proceedings of mediation and the views expressed therein by any of the parties including the learned Mediators shall be kept confidential and shall not be revealed to any other person. The Court further said:

“while the mediation proceedings are being carried out, there ought not to be any reporting of the said proceedings either in the print or in the electronic media. However, we refrain from passing any specific order at this stage and instead empower the learned mediators to pass necessary orders in writing, if so required, to restrain publication of the details of the mediation proceedings.”

In it’s order dated 26.02.2019, the Court has said that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

Reserving it’s order on 06.03.2019, the Court had said:

“Even if there is one percent chance, it should be explored.”

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 342, order dated 08.03.2019]

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has said that it will ‘soon’ pass the order on whether the Ayodhya dispute will be referred to a Court appointed mediation for ‘permanent solution’.

The Court has asked the parties to suggest the name of a mediator or a panel of mediators. It said:

“There need not be one mediator but a panel of mediators. When the mediation is on, it should not be reported on. It may not be a gag but no motive should be attributed to anyone when the mediation process in on.”

Considering the possibility of ‘healing relations’, the Court said:

“Even if there is one percent chance, it should be explored.”

In it’s order dated 26.02.2019, the Court has said that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

(With inputs from ANI)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ said that it will pass order on March 6, 2019 on whether the case may be sent for court-monitored mediation to save time.

At the outset of the hearing, CJI said that the Court will start hearing only when all the contesting parties tell it clearly whether official translated copies of records done by State of Uttar Pradesh is acceptable to all as it did not want any dispute over it in the midst of hearing. The State of Uttar Pradesh has submitted translation of the oral evidence in the case which runs into about 13000 pages.

CJI Gogoi said:

“We are not going to waste our time and of this Court if disputes are going to be raised regarding translation of the documents.”

The Court, hence, directed:

“We direct the parties to satisfy themselves with regard to the accuracy, correctness, relevance, etc. of the translation filed in the Registry by the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as the translated copies of the Exhibits made available by the parties and point out their respective agreements/objections stating precisely the part of the translations on which objections/disagreements are being raised. Once the said process is completed, which we expect the parties to do within eight weeks from today, further orders will follow so that hearing of the cases can begin in the right earnest.”

The Court, also suggested that during this 8 weeks’ time a Court appointed and Court monitored mediation with utmost confidentiality could be initiated to bring a permanent solution to the issues raised in the cases. It, however, made clear that:

“the mediation suggested is only to effectively utilize the time of eight weeks that would be taken to make the cases ready for hearing.”

Bobde, J said:

“We may decide a property dispute but we are thinking more about healing relationships.”

The bench, however, refrained from passing any order on the said suggestion for now and said that it will pass order on March 6, 2019 on the issue whether Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute be referred to Court appointed mediator.

[M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 272, order dated 26.02.2019]

(With inputs from The Leaflet)
Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. passed an order stating that the matter will be listed in January 2019 for hearing.

Background:
The Bench comprising of erstwhile CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ., by a majority of 2:1, held that the appeals concerning the Ayodhya (Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid) matter, Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 360 need not be referred to a larger Bench for consideration. Ashok Bhushan, J. delivered the majority judgment for Justice Misra and himself. While S. Abdul Nazeer, J. in his separate opinion was of the view that the matter should be referred to a larger Bench.

As per the majority, it was held that the present appeal does not require to be referred to a larger Bench nor does the Ismail Faruqui case needs reconsideration. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

Present Scenario:
The Supreme Court bench comprising of the CJ along with two other judges has adjourned the matter to be listed for hearing in January 2019. [M.Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das, Civil Appeal No(s). 10866-10867 of 2010, Order dated 29-10-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of CJ Dipak Misra and Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer JJ., continued with the proceedings on the Ayodhya dispute.

The hearing held last on 13-07-2018 brought the sparks in today’s proceedings as well, as C.S Vaidynathan representing the Ram temple objected on Rajeev Dhavan using the word ‘Hindu Taliban’ for the people who demolished Babri Masjid during his arguments.

Rajeev Dhavan in today’s hearing stated that ‘Yes those who brought down mosque acted like Taliban, I stand by my words’.

CJI Dipak Misra: Maintain the decorum of the Court. ‘Such adjectives should not be used inside the Court room’.

Rajeev Dhavan while continuing with his arguments stated that ‘Mosque was there since 1526 until it was destroyed in the year 1992. There was no temple, Hindus were just given the right o worship there.

He further discussed ‘particular significance’ and ‘comparative significance’ on Essential Religious Practices Test.

Supreme Court reserved its order on the point whether the matter should be referred to the Constitution Bench or not.

[Source: https://twitter.com/clprscobserver]