The much-awaited Ayodhya case arguments are to begin on December 5 in the Supreme Court. The case which shook the politics and polity of India for over 70 years and the desire of crores of Hindu believers to see the establishment of “Divya Bhavya Ram Mandir” in Lord Ram’s birthplace is expected to witness a logical conclusion in these final arguments. The apex court’s three-judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer is expected to order for a daily hearing from January 2018 to settle this dispute to bring a permanent solution on the Ayodhya issue, where the historic Ram Mandir was destroyed by Mughal rulers to construct Babri Masjid in 15th Century.
Swamy cited the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) that Ram Mandir was destroyed and a Babri Masjid was constructed above the 14 pillars of the Mandir.
In the previous hearing, the Supreme Court on August 11 asked the Yogi Adityanath led Uttar Pradesh Government to get the 90,000-page oral evidence in the case translated in 10 weeks and fixed December 5 to hear cross-appeals in the matter. Almost seven years after the Allahabad High Court’s September 30, 2010, order dividing the 2.7-acre disputed land equally between Ram Lala, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Waqf Board, the Chief Justice of India-led Bench is all set to take up cross-appeals filed by various parties to fix the modalities of the hearing.
The appeal in Supreme Court which was pending for more than seven years got momentum when two years ago BJP leader Subramanian Swamy impleaded into the petition by seeking basic amenities for the pilgrims to worship the idols in the disputed site. He also filed another petition arguing that the matter is not a mere title dispute but it is actually a fundamental right of worship. Swamy cited the findings of the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) that Ram Mandir was destroyed and a Babri Masjid was constructed above the 14 pillars of the Mandir. The ASI study was conducted by senior officer KK Muhammad. In his recent book, he described how the Left historians tried to suppress these facts and argued against the construction of Ram Mandir. He observed that many Left historians and Left politicians played dirty tricks to block the permanent settlement on this issue.
Recently the Left – Liberal people came out with a curious petition in Supreme Court suggesting that the Supreme Court should not rule in favor of any community!!! This sheer nonsense petition is a move by these people to scuttle the permanent peace. A majority of the Congress lawyers led by Kapil Sibal represent the Sunni Waqf Board, arguing against the construction of Ram Mandir. Many of these lawyers put strong arguments against BJP leader Subramanian Swamy’s entry into the case.
In the previous hearing, the Bench had made it clear that all other petitions/ intervention applications, including those by BJP leader Subramanian Swamy and Shia Central Waqf Board, Uttar Pradesh, would be kept pending as it intended to hear the main matter first.
Shia leaders also filed an application in the Supreme Court saying that the Masjid belongs to them and Sunni’s got the control in the mid 40s because of a wrong order by the British authorities. The Shia Waqf Board said the demolished mosque was a Shia Waqf property as Mir Baqi, who got Babri Mosque constructed, was a Shia Muslim. It also supported the construction of a Ram temple at the disputed site where a makeshift temple exists at present, saying a masjid could be built in a Muslim area.
A few weeks back Shia Waqf Board Chairman Wasim Rizvi, after holding peace talks with many Hindu community leaders said that they prefer a new Masjid in Lucknow and the disputed site should be handed over the construction of Ram Mandir as a permanent solution.
Coming are the days of debates and discussions across the country on the Ayodhya issue and about the desire of crores of Hindu believers for construction of “Divya Bhavya Ram Mandir” in Ayodhya, as the apex court has initiated final arguments to bring permanent solution, rocking the Nation for many decades.
- Prime Minister Narendra Modi: A Gujju businessman who does not invest his precious time for a losing battle - April 13, 2024
- NIA arrests two accused Shazib and Taahaa in Bengaluru’s Rameshwaram Cafe blast case from Kolkata - April 12, 2024
- National Herald scam: Adjudicating Authority upholds Rs.752 crore assets attached by ED - April 11, 2024
The Supreme Court have no moral or have respect for the Hindu Culture. They are in favour of the Muslim Culture. No matter what the SC is not willing to accept that Sri Ram was even existed.!!??
I am shamed by their act of delay with ignorance and disrespect towards Sri Ram.
A Challenge to SC : If you have the guts the say with pride that YOU respect and obey the Sanatan Dharma where Sri Ram existed. Then with full heart declare Ayodhya is still the Ram Bhumi.
does a shiva bhakt means supporting a case just in favour of hindus ,,, this absurd argument that a hindu must only stand for hindus is exaclt like a call given by islamic extremists ,,, govt should prepare to save innocents if riots happen ,,, we will have no effect on us we can all sit in our rooms and hope for temples or masjids ,,, those sitting at the helm of affairs and enjoying this political game will not get affected by the riots ,
//Recently the Left – Liberal people came out with a curious petition in Supreme Court suggesting that the Supreme Court should not rule in favor of any community!!!//
I could not find details of the petition and the people filing it. They should be exposed
Jai Shri Ram
Rahul being self declared Shiva bhakt and Hindu can ask sibal not to plead in the court against Rammandir and can save the Congress from the disgrace of going against Hindus.