English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Ayodhya case: Mediation fails, daily hearings to begin in Supreme Court from Aug 6

Published

on

Ayodhya case: Mediation fails, daily hearings to begin in Supreme Court from Aug 6

As efforts to mediate a final settlement between rival Hindu and Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title dispute cases failed, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi said today (Friday, Aug 2) that the court will commence hearing the appeals from August 6 on a day to day basis.

“Mediation didn’t result in any kind of settlement,” said Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi in a six-minute hearing.

The 5-judge Constitution Bench, also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, said the appeals of Nirmohi Akhara and deity Ram Lalla would be heard first, overruling objection of senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, for the Muslim parties, who asked why the Bench chose to hear these two parties first. He said some of the Muslim parties had filed first.

The Bench said it may consider his submission that, in that event, he be given 20 full days to argue his case and his submissions should not be curtailed.“We will see about it… Let us start hearing the appeals,” Chief Justice Gogoi replied.

On July 18, the Bench had asked the mediation committee led by former Supreme Court judge FMI Kalifulla to submit a report on the outcome of mediation proceedings held between July 31 and August 1 with Hindu and Muslim parties to amicably resolve the over 70-year-old Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title spat.

On July 9, an application was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, an original claimant to the disputed land who filed a title suit way back in 1950, through his survivor Rajendra Singh, claiming that the Justice Kalifulla committee was making no progress. The application urged the court to stop mediation and start adjudication on the pending Ayodhya appeals.

The Bench had sent the dispute for mediation on March 8 this year, in the hope that mediation would spell a peaceful end to the volatile dispute between the members of the two religious faiths. It set up a panel comprising former Supreme Court judge FM Kalifulla, spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu to explore an amicable settlement.

The Constitution bench had chosen mediation despite objections from petitioners like the Uttar Pradesh government. Barring the Sunni Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara, one of the Hindu petitioners, all were against mediation. But the judges had said mediation may help in “healing relations”.

The Benchexplained that the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case “is not about the 1500 sq. ft. of disputed land, but about religious sentiments. We know its impact on public sentiment, on body politic. We are looking at minds, hearts and healing, if possible.”

During the hearing today, an application filed by M Siddiq, through his legal heirs, which pointed out several “discrepancies” in the translations done by the Uttar Pradesh government of the case records, also came up.

Also Read: Pak terrorists plan to target Amarnath yatra, sniper rifle & landmine found on route

The application, filed on July 15, claimed there were “glaring errors” and illustrated a few examples of them. It said verification of the translations was a Herculean task. “The testimonies alone run into 54 volumes consisting of 13,426 pages, which have been translated into English and filed by the Uttar Pradesh government. There are a total 533 exhibits translated by various parties,” it said.

“But let the hearing in appeals start…” Chief Justice Gogoi said, making it plain that the court would brook no further delay in the adjudication of the appeals pending for nearly a decade in the court.

The dispute involves the site in Ayodhya where the 16th-century Babri mosque stood before it was razed in 1992 by Hindutva activists who believe that it was built on the ruins of an ancient temple marking the birthplace of Lord Ram. In riots following the mosque demolition, 2,000 people died across the country.

Fourteen appeals have been filed in the top court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties – theSunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla (infant Ram).

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