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

Ajit Pawar dismisses speculation on Supriya Sule joining BJP

Ajit Pawar has dismissed speculation about Supriya Sule joining the BJP, calling such rumours exaggerated and stressing that his focus remains on elections and development.

Published

on

Ajit Pawar

Amid renewed political speculation around Nationalist Congress Party–Sharad Pawar (NCP-SP) leader Supriya Sule’s future, Maharashtra Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar on Monday dismissed rumours of her joining the BJP, stating that he is “not an astrologer” and prefers to focus on governance and electoral outcomes rather than conjecture.

The remarks came after Sule publicly praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi for sending all-party delegations abroad following Operation Sindoor, triggering fresh political chatter in Maharashtra’s volatile landscape.

Ajit Pawar rejects political speculation

Responding to questions from the media, Ajit Pawar said speculative interpretations are often exaggerated and unnecessarily amplified.

“I am not an astrologer. Such speculative questions often become breaking news without reason. My focus is on development until January 15,” he said, seeking to put an end to the rumours.

On whether there is any possibility of the two factions of the Nationalist Congress Party coming together, Pawar said the immediate priority is electoral success.

“At present, our top priority is winning the elections. We are working with full effort to ensure a positive outcome,” he said.

On NCP reunification and family ties

Addressing broader questions on a possible reunification between the NCP and NCP-SP, Pawar used a familial analogy, suggesting that unity cannot be ruled out.

“We are one family. In every family, people come together during moments of happiness and sorrow. If family members decide to stand together, there is nothing wrong in that,” he said.

However, he did not indicate any concrete move or timeline for such a reunion.

Thackeray brothers’ reunion and voter behaviour

Commenting on the coming together of the Thackeray brothers, Pawar said the development could have electoral consequences.

“Shiv Sena (UBT) and MNS traditionally had different voter bases. With them coming together, vote division could reduce, which may benefit them electorally,” he said.

Pawar clarified that he played no role in facilitating the reunion but welcomed the move, calling it a positive development within a political family.

He also cautioned against assuming uniform voter consolidation, noting that voting behaviour varies across elections.

“Voters think differently in national, state and local elections. The results of the Lok Sabha and subsequent Assembly elections clearly show that,” he added.

On free facilities, local alliances and Mumbai remark

Responding to criticism over promises of free facilities, Pawar said such decisions rest with the Chief Minister at the state level and the Prime Minister at the national level. He added that at the local body level, his experience of over two decades guides his approach.

On alliances involving parties like the NCP, Shiv Sena and AIMIM in local bodies such as the Parli Municipal Corporation, Pawar said such arrangements are common and often finalised locally without involving senior leadership.

He also strongly rejected remarks by a BJP leader claiming Mumbai is not part of Maharashtra.

“Mumbai is in India, and within India, it is in Maharashtra. It will always remain a part of Maharashtra. Such statements are made around elections to draw attention,” Pawar said.

On Bharat Ratna for Sharad Pawar

When asked whether NCP founder Sharad Pawar should be awarded the Bharat Ratna, Ajit Pawar said the decision lies with the Central government.

“Sharad Pawar has served public life for over 60 years and taken many important decisions. Anyone is free to express an opinion, but the final call rests with the Centre,” he said.

Continue Reading

India News

PSLV comeback mission hit by third-stage anomaly during launch from Sriharikota

ISRO’s PSLV-C62 mission faced a third-stage anomaly around 30 minutes after launch, raising concerns over the rocket’s comeback flight after its 2025 failure.

Published

on

PSLV LAUNCH

At 10.18 am on Tuesday, the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV)-C62 lifted off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, carrying 16 satellites into space. The launch marked the first PSLV mission of the year and was being closely watched as a comeback attempt following a failure in 2025.

Roughly 30 minutes after liftoff, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) stated that the mission had “encountered an anomaly” during its third stage. The space agency has initiated a detailed analysis but has not yet officially declared the mission a failure.

Third stage issue raises concerns again

The PSLV is a four-stage launch vehicle, with the first two stages reportedly performing as expected during Tuesday’s mission. The problem surfaced during the third stage, where deviation was observed.

ISRO chairman Dr V Narayanan said that a detailed assessment is underway. Historically, issues during the third stage of a rocket have often resulted in mission failure, although ISRO has so far avoided using that term for this launch.

The setback is significant as this was intended to be a recovery mission. The PSLV’s only launch in 2025 had also failed due to a third-stage issue. An analysis committee was formed after that failure, but its findings were not made public.

Mission payload and satellite loss

The mission aimed to place a surveillance satellite into orbit. The earth observation satellite, named Anvesha, was developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation. Alongside it, the PSLV carried 15 additional satellites from multiple countries, including Brazil, Nepal and the UK.

With the anomaly occurring mid-mission, these satellites are now believed to be lost.

Track record remains strong despite setback

The PSLV has completed 64 missions so far, with four failures recorded prior to this launch. If the current mission is eventually declared unsuccessful, it would mark the fifth failure, keeping the overall success rate relatively high.

However, the timing of the anomaly is a concern, given the growing reliance on PSLV for commercial and strategic launches.

Impact on space industry and future launches

The development is particularly worrying for private players in India’s expanding space ecosystem. Several start-ups had payloads on this mission, including Hyderabad-based Dhruva Space, which had placed seven satellites onboard.

The outcome also casts uncertainty over the planned industry-led PSLV launch scheduled for the first half of 2026. That mission is being developed with participation from Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and Larsen and Toubro.

ISRO is expected to conduct a thorough investigation into the third-stage issue before finalising the status of the mission and outlining corrective measures.

Continue Reading

India News

Mani Shankar Aiyar’s remarks on Hindutva spark political backlash from BJP

Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar’s comments on Hindutva at a Kolkata debate have triggered sharp reactions from the BJP, escalating the Hinduism versus Hindutva debate.

Published

on

manishankar aiyer

Veteran Congress leader Mani Shankar Aiyar has triggered a political controversy after describing Hindutva as “Hinduism in paranoia” during a public debate in Kolkata, prompting a strong rebuttal from leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Aiyar made the remarks at a discussion titled “Hinduism needs protection from Hindutva”, organised by the Calcutta Debating Circle at the Calcutta Club on Sunday. Several political leaders, legal experts, historians and journalists participated in the debate.

Aiyar draws distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva

Speaking at the event, Aiyar argued that Hinduism and Hindutva are fundamentally different, describing Hinduism as a spiritual and civilisational faith, while calling Hindutva a political ideology that emerged in the early 20th century.

“Hindutva is Hinduism in paranoia. It asks 80 per cent Hindus to feel threatened by 14 per cent Muslims,” Aiyar said, adding that Hinduism had survived and flourished for thousands of years without the need for what he described as political protection.

He referred to incidents involving attacks by vigilante groups and criticised actions against individuals over religious practices, beef consumption and participation in Christmas celebrations. Aiyar also cited writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, contrasting them with the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi and Swami Vivekananda, whom he described as proponents of non-violence and inclusivity.

According to Aiyar, “There is no way Gandhi’s or Vivekananda’s Hinduism can be protected or promoted by Savarkar’s Hindutva.”

BJP leaders push back strongly

Aiyar’s comments drew an immediate response from BJP leaders present at the debate and later from party spokespersons.

BJP MP Sudhanshu Trivedi questioned the framing of the debate itself, arguing that the term “Hindutva” refers to “Hindu tattva” or the essence of Hindu philosophy. He said that associating Hinduism with the suffix “ism” was misleading and dismissive of India’s indigenous traditions.

“When you cherish Hinduism, it is called Hindutva,” Trivedi said, rejecting the distinction drawn by Aiyar.

BJP spokesperson Shehzad Poonawalla accused Aiyar of repeatedly making remarks that, according to him, insult Sanatan Dharma. He claimed that the comments echoed the Congress party’s broader stance on Hindutva.

Poonawalla also referred to past statements by Congress leaders and said that Hindutva has been defined by the Supreme Court as a “way of life.” He accused the party of attempting to portray Hindutva as violent and divisive.

Political debate intensifies

The exchange has added to the ongoing political debate over the relationship between Hinduism and Hindutva, a subject that has remained contentious in Indian politics. While Aiyar defended his views as ideological and historical critique, BJP leaders framed the remarks as an attack on religious identity.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com