Did uncouth Left-wingers with help of certain Buddhist organizations try to delay Bhoomi pooja of Ayodhya Ram Mandir?

One more insidious attempt by Left-wingers to derail the construction of Ram Mandir falls flat

One more insidious attempt by Left-wingers to derail the construction of Ram Mandir falls flat
One more insidious attempt by Left-wingers to derail the construction of Ram Mandir falls flat

On Monday, the Supreme Court fined Rs. One Lakh each for two sets of petitions demanding re-excavation and preservation of artifacts from the Ram Mandir construction site in Ayodhya. Who are these petitioners? The first set of petitions was filed by four people from Maharashtra led by one Satish Shambharkar, aged 43. Interestingly this Nagpur resident claims his occupation as a Student. At age 43, he is still a student? There three more persons who were signatories to this petition. They are Dr. Devandand Ubale (45) from Jalgaon claiming to be the President of World Humanity and claiming to be having an occupation as Service, Aniket Pawar (33) from Ratnagiri, claiming occupation as Student and 45-year-old Rajesh Sitaram Jadhav from Ratnagiri claiming to be in the private section. The second petition is from a Munger, Bihar-based-NGO titled as Dr. Ambedkar Bodhikunja.

The first petitioner Satish Shambarkar was represented by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy. It must be remembered that in Social Media a few days ago many Left leaders like CPI(M) Polit Bureau member Subhashini Ali were floating claims that Buddhists too have a claim in Ayodhya. These murky attempts were done after the Bhoomi Pooja function in Ayodhya was announced. The second petitioner Bihar’s Munger based Dr. Ambedkar Bodhikunja has always been involved in many litigations regarding Dalai Lama and Karmapa controversies.

Many political observers feel this dubious move was engineered and supported by Left-wing people.

The bench consisting of Justices Arun Mishra, B. R. Gavai, and Krishan Murari said that a five-judge bench has already given its verdict, and this is an attempt through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to overreach the landmark Ayodhya judgment. Judges termed these petitions as frivolous and imposed Rs. One lakh each fine on the two petitioners. Many legal experts feel that this petition was a covert attempt to delay the construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, where the Bhoomi Pooja is scheduled for August 5.

“You should stop filing such frivolous petitions. What do you mean by this petition? Are you saying that there is no rule of law and the five-judge bench judgment (Ayodhya Judgment) of this court will not be followed by anyone?” said the Bench headed by Justices Arun Mishra, agreeing to the demand of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta’s suggestions for imposing fine on these frivolous petitions.

Many political observers feel this dubious move was engineered and supported by Left-wing people. This is not the first time the Left parties and Left historians and academicians are playing fraud in Ayodhya Ram Mandir case. Famous Archeologist K K Muhammed had exposed the covert operations of Left historians in Ayodhya case[1].

References:

[1] Uncouth Left historians exposed – old temple remnants found in Ayodhya. New proved beyond doubt Masjid was built by destroying Ram MandirMay 21, 2020, PGurus.com

Team PGurus

3 COMMENTS

  1. The abolition of PIL may not be a good idea. Many good PIL do come up before Supreme court For ex, a PIL has been filed asking for directions for stringent population policy. The abolition of Art 370 and 35A is also due to PIL. Hence an amount of Rs10 lakhs should be court fee before filing PIL. If PIL is disposed of like the way Ayodthya petition was dismissed the entire Rs10/- lakhs should be forfeited. Done this way this helps to prevent filing frivolous PIL petitions before S.C

  2. Is supreme court collecting these fines? We read many news items where fines are imposed by SC. It is supposed to be a deterrence to prevent frivolous litigations.However they continue to be filed.Somehow I feel SC never bothers to collect fines or impose restrictions that fined person can’t appear in court in future till fines are paid.

  3. One lakh fine is insufficient keeping in view the mischievous intent of the petition. Misuse of PIL. PIL should be abolished. Under its garb all sorts of vexatious cases are being filed wasting the time of the SC

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here