English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Ayodhya case: Decision on scheduling hearing put off to Jan 29 after judge recuses from Bench

Published

on

Ayodhya temple

Hearing of the eagerly awaited, politically sensitive Ram JanmabhoomiBabri Masjid land title dispute in the Supreme Court was today (Thursday, Jan 10) put off till Jan 29 after Justice Uday U Lalit recused himself from the case for previously being a lawyer in a related case.

The court will now constitute a new bench for deciding the schedule of hearing the case on January 29.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi had set up a Constitution bench comprising himself and Justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, UU Lalit, DY Chandrachud to decide the date when they will begin hearing the 14 appeals in the case.

However, Justice UU Lalit recused himself from the case after senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim side pointed out that he had once appeared as a lawyer for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in another case related to the land dispute in 1994. Though Dhavan said he was not seeking Justice Lalit’s recusal, the judge opted out of the hearing in the matter.

The constitution bench will now have to be reconstituted when the matter comes up for hearing next on January 29.

As soon as the bench assembled this morning to hear the Ayodhya matter, the CJI clarified that the case had been listed on the day not for arguments but only to decide the schedule for the commencement of the proceedings.

On Tuesday, in a surprise move, CJI Ranjan Gogoi had formed a five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by him, to hear the case. Using his discretionary powers to list the matter before a Constitution Bench without a fresh reference being made in the case for such a request, the CJI had indicated that, although, his predecessor had declared that the case will be treated purely as a title dispute, the top court may now also be open to larger questions of constitutional relevance involved in the case.

When the matter was last taken up on January 4, there was no indication that the case would be referred to a Constitution bench as the apex court had simply said further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by “the appropriate bench, as may be constituted”.

Days before he demitted office, then Chief Justice Dipak Misra had, in September, while pronouncing a verdict in the Ismail Faruqui reference, said that the Ayodhya matter did not need to be heard by a bench of a larger composition than three judges. The verdict had also upheld a controversial observation in the Ismail Faruqui case of mid-1990s, which was linked with the main matter of the Ayodhya title suit, that stated “a mosque is not integral to Islam” and hence was not a perquisite for offering namaz.

The bench headed by Chief Justice Misra had then said that the hearing in the Ayodhya matter could resume from October 29 (by when Justice Gogoi would be elevated to the top post of the apex court). However, upon assuming office, Chief Justice Gogoi had earlier put off the hearing in the case till January this year, declaring that an “appropriate bench” would be constituted for adjudicating proceedings in the matter.

On Thursday, senior advocate Dhavan, appearing for the Muslim petitioners in the case, objected to the CJI’s decision of forming a Constitution Bench to hear the suit without any fresh reference being made for the purpose. However, the Bench, in unison, rejected Dhavan’s contention stating that the CJI had used his discretion and was permitted to do so as per the Supreme Court Rules.

The bench also overruled Dhavan’s claim that the Chief Justice had, in forming a Constitution Bench in the case, gone against an earlier verdict in the matter that said a three-judge bench was competent to adjudicate the pleas.

Dhavan also pointed out that the verdict in the title suit, delivered by the Allahabad High Court, runs into over 4300 pages and a large number of documents related to the case still need to be translated and circulated to all parties and their lawyers.

The bench then directed the Supreme Court registry to appoint official translators for the documents and also assess how much time it would take to complete the process of translations. The translations have to be made into English and Hindi from documents that are written in Arabic, Sanskrit and Gurmukhi, aside from some other vernacular languages.

The apex court said in its order that 113 issues are likely to be perused during the hearing. It also noted that 88 witnesses were examined and their statements recorded when the matter was before the Allahabad high court. It said the deposition of the witnesses runs into 2,886 pages and 257 documents were exhibited.

The apex court noted that the high court judgement itself is 4,304 pages; along with additional annexures it runs into 8,000 pages.

Fourteen appeals against the September 30, 2010 decision of the Allahabad High Court — which accepted that the disputed site was birthplace of Lord Ram and ordered a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres, giving a third each to the Nirmohi Akhara sect, the Sunni Central Wakf Board, UP, and Ramlalla Virajman — have been pending since December of that year.

Right-wing organisations, including the RSS, have been demanding an early decision on the dispute. Demands seeking an ordinance for construction of a Ram temple have also gained momentum.

India News

Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses relief in passport row case

Congress leader Pawan Khera faces fresh setback as Supreme Court refuses interim relief and directs him to seek bail from Guwahati High Court.

Published

on

Pawan Khera

Congress leader Pawan Khera suffered another legal setback on Friday after the Supreme Court of India declined to extend protection in a case linked to his remarks about Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife.

A bench of the apex court refused to interfere with an earlier order that had stayed the transit anticipatory bail granted to Khera by the Telangana High Court. This decision leaves the Congress leader open to possible arrest by Assam Police in connection with the case.

During the hearing, Khera’s counsel sought interim protection, but the court declined the request and advised him to approach the appropriate court in Assam for relief. The bench clarified that the Guwahati High Court should decide any bail plea independently and on its merits.

“Am I a terrorist?” remark during hearing

While seeking protection, Khera’s legal team expressed concern over the urgency of the situation. In court, his counsel remarked, “Am I a terrorist?” highlighting the plea for temporary relief until a fresh bail application could be filed.

The Supreme Court also raised concerns over the submission of incorrect documents during the proceedings, adding another layer to the legal complications faced by the Congress leader.

Case linked to remarks on CM’s wife

The case stems from a press conference held earlier this month, where Khera made allegations regarding the citizenship status and financial assets of the Assam Chief Minister’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sharma.

He had claimed that she possessed multiple passports and owned undisclosed overseas properties. These allegations were strongly denied by the Chief Minister’s family, who termed them fabricated and misleading.

Legal battle intensifies

Earlier, the Telangana High Court had granted Khera temporary transit anticipatory bail, allowing him time to seek relief from a competent court in Assam. However, the Supreme Court stayed that order following a challenge by Assam authorities, escalating the legal battle.

With the latest ruling, Khera is now expected to move the Guwahati High Court for anticipatory bail as the case continues to unfold.

Continue Reading

India News

Congress suspends 5 Haryana MLAs over cross-voting in Rajya Sabha polls

Congress suspends five Haryana MLAs for cross-voting in Rajya Sabha elections, citing serious indiscipline and anti-party activities.

Published

on

The Congress has suspended five of its MLAs in Haryana for cross-voting during the recent Rajya Sabha elections, taking disciplinary action over what it described as “anti-party activities”.

The move came after the state unit reviewed the conduct of certain legislators during the polls, where some were found to have voted against the party’s authorised candidate.

Five MLAs suspended after disciplinary process

According to party sources, the MLAs were issued show-cause notices seeking an explanation for their actions. After reviewing their responses, the Congress disciplinary committee recommended suspension.

The decision was approved by the party leadership, including Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge, and has been implemented with immediate effect.

Party calls it ‘grave indiscipline’

Haryana Congress chief Udai Bhan said the action was necessary to uphold party discipline, stressing that defying the official party line during elections weakens organisational unity.

He said the party takes such violations seriously and will continue to act against any form of indiscipline.

Leadership backs strict action

Senior Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Bhupinder Singh Hooda supported the decision, saying it was taken after due consideration.

He noted that while Rajya Sabha elections are conducted through an open ballot system, allowing legislators some flexibility, the party retains the authority to initiate internal disciplinary action in cases of deviation.

Background

The action follows cross-voting reported during the recent Rajya Sabha elections in Haryana, which led to internal concerns within the party. The development has highlighted organisational challenges and prompted the leadership to take corrective steps to reinforce discipline.

Continue Reading

India News

Harivansh set to be elected Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairperson unopposed

Harivansh is set to be elected unopposed as Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman after no opposition nominations were filed before the deadline.

Published

on

Former Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh is set to be re-elected to the same post unopposed in the election due to be held later today.
The date has been fixed by the Chairman under the relevant rules governing the conduct of business in the Upper House.
According to sources, the deadline for submitting motions for the election was 12 noon on April 16. A total of five notices were received within the stipulated time, all proposing Harivansh for the post.

Multiple nominations, single candidate
The motions were submitted by members across parties, including Jagat Prakash Nadda, Nitin Nabin, Nirmala Sitharaman, Sanjay Kumar Jha, and Jayant Chaudhary, each backed by seconding members.
All five motions explicitly state that Harivansh be chosen as the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

No opposition nomination filed

Notably, no motion was submitted by the Opposition before the deadline. This effectively clears the path for a unanimous election, as there is no contest for the position.
As per parliamentary procedure, motions will be taken up one by one. Once any one motion is adopted by the House, the remaining motions will not be put to vote.

Likely to be elected by voice vote
In line with established practice, the first motion — expected to be moved by Nadda — may be adopted through a voice vote. Following this, the Chairman will formally declare Harivansh as elected Deputy Chairman.
After the declaration, Harivansh will be escorted to the Chair by members from both the Treasury and Opposition benches, adhering to parliamentary convention.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com