Monday, September 16, 2019
facebook
Nation

Posted at: Aug 19, 2019, 12:13 PM; last updated: Aug 19, 2019, 12:13 PM (IST)

Ayodhya land dispute: No hearing in SC as Constitution bench judge unavailable

Ayodhya land dispute: No hearing in SC as Constitution bench judge unavailable
The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was scheduled to hear arguments of senior lawyer CS Vaidyanathan, representing deity ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ for the eighth day.

New Delhi, August 19

The hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case could not take place in the Supreme Court on Monday due to unavailability of one of the five judges of the Constitution bench.

The Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was scheduled to hear arguments of senior lawyer CS Vaidyanathan, representing deity ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ for the eighth day.

Minutes before the commencement of the hearing, lawyers on both sides were told by the court staff that Justice SA Bobde was unavailable.

Besides CJI and Justice Bobde, Justices DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer are part of the bench which is hearing the appeal in the case.

On Friday, Vaidyanathan had told the court that a “massive” temple of Lord Ram, dating back to the second century BC, existed at the disputed site in Ayodhya before the construction of the Babri Masjid.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties--the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’.

The Babri Masjid in Ayodhya was demolished by right-wing activists on December 6, 1992, leading to the protracted legal battle. PTI

COMMENTS

All readers are invited to post comments responsibly. Any messages with foul language or inciting hatred will be deleted. Comments with all capital letters will also be deleted. Readers are encouraged to flag the comments they feel are inappropriate.
The views expressed in the Comments section are of the individuals writing the post. The Tribune does not endorse or support the views in these posts in any manner.
Share On