English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Ayodhya Dispute: Timeline Update

As the Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute reaches its last leg this week, Ayodhya has been placed under Sec 144 till 10th December 2019. Earlier this month, the deadline of arguments was moved up to 17th October. Below is a detailed timeline of the dispute since its inception

Published

on

Ayodhya temple

As the Ram-Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute reaches its last leg this week, Ayodhya has been placed under Sec 144 till 10th December 2019. Earlier this month, the deadline of arguments was moved up to 17th October, instead of the previously fixed 18th October. CJI Ranjan Gogoi has on a prior occasion remarked, “It will be miraculous if we deliver the judgement in four weeks in the matter.” The Chief Justice intends to deliver verdict before his retirement, which is due on 17th November.

Below is a detailed timeline of the dispute since its inception:

1528: Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur.

1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. Court rejects plea.

December 1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure.

1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla.

1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files suit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols.

1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site.

1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.

February 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers.

August 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.

December 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished.

1993

April 3: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area.

1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act.

October 24, 1994: SC says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

April 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.                 

2003

March 13: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.

March 14: SC says interim order passed should be operative till the disposal of civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony.

2010

September 30, 2010HC, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

May 9, 2011: SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.

February 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site. 

2017

March 21: CJI JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties.

August 7: SC constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC.

August 8: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.

September 11: SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.

November 20: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.

December 1: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC.

December 5: The final hearings in the Ayodhya appeals begin before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (now retired) Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer. 

2018

February 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals.

March 14: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.

April 6: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.

July 6: UP government tells SC some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict.

July 20: SC reserves verdict.

September 27: SC declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.

October 29: A three-judge Bench led by CJI Ranjan Gogoi order the dispute appeals will be listed in January 2019 before an appropriate Bench to fix a date for hearing. 

2019

January 4: A Two-judge CJI Bench again says an “appropriate Bench” will take up the appeals on January 10.

January 8: SC notifies that a five-judge Bench led by the CJI and the next four future Chief Justices of India in line of seniority – Justices S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, U.U. Lalit and D.Y. Chandrachud – will hear the Ayodhya title dispute appeals on January 10.

January 10: The hearing remains a non-starter as Justice U.U. Lalit recuses himself from the Bench.

January 29: Hearing deferred as Justice Bobde was on medical leave. Justices Ashok Bhushan and S. Abdul Nazeer are replaced with Justices N.V. Ramana and U.U. Lalit.

February 20: A Supreme Court circular informs that the Ayodhya Bench will assemble on February 26.

February 26: The Supreme Court proposes a court-monitored mediation process between the Hindu and Muslim parties litigating the Ayodhya dispute. Gives eight weeks for the Muslim appellants to examine the official translation of Ayodhya case records.

March 8: The Bench sends the Ayodhya dispute for mediation. The mediators are former apex court judge, Justice F.M.I. Kalifulla, as Chairman, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate Sriram Panchu.

August 2: Efforts to mediate a final settlement between rival Hindu and Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title dispute cases, a Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi says; Court decides to hear appeals from August 6 on a day-to-day basis.

August 6: Constitution Bench begins hearing the cross-appeals filed by the Hindu and Muslim sides challenging the three-way partition of the disputed 2.77 acres of Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land among Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and the Sunni Waqf Board; Nirmohi Akhara lays claim to Ram Janmabhoomi

August 7: “Whether Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem… Has such a question ever arisen in any court,” Justice S.A. Bobde asks; Unshakeable faith is proof of Rama’s birthplace, says Ram Lalla‘s lawyer.

August 8: Can birthplace be considered a ‘juristic person’, asks Supreme Court.

August 9: Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, said he will “not be able to assist” the court if the hearing is “rushed through”.

August 13: We’re in no hurry to finish Ayodhya hearing, says Supreme Court.

August 14: Supreme Court poses queries to Hindu parties’ counsel on who ordered temple’s demolition, Babur or much later, Aurangzeb. Hindu Party states, demolition doesn’t matter as long as consistent travelogues document the existence of a temple, people’s association of a certain divinity to the place, and later continued faith in its ruins.

August 16: Prove that Babri Masjid was built over a temple, Supreme Court tells Hindu parties.

August 20: Inscription on mosque slab spoke of Vishnu temple, Hindu party informs Supreme Court.

August 21: Present evidence on temple claim, Supreme Court tells lawyers.

August 22: Hindus have an “unfettered” right to worship at a site believed for centuries to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, appellant Gopal Singh Visharad tells court.

August 23: Respond to Ayodhya case judge’s protection plea, Supreme Court tells U.P. government. Nirmohi Akhara quizzed by court on rights to Ayodhya site.

August 27: Nirmohi Akhara drops objection to a separate suit for title filed by the Ayodhya deity.

August 28: Babur may not have built Babri Masjid, Supreme Court told.

August 30: Emperor Babur was an invader and law could not be used to ‘institutionalise’ the rights of an invader, the Hindu Mahasabha argues; Shia Waqf Board questions claim of Sunni section over the disputed land.

September 3: Installation of idols inside Babri Masjid in the intervening night of December 22-23 of 1949, which marked the beginning of heightened tensions and legal battle, was a “surreptitious attack”, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan claims. SC notice to Chennai man for allegedly intimidating Rajeev Dhavan

September 4: Hindus and Muslims “alike used to worship in the mosque-temple”, Rajeev Dhavan tells Supreme Court. SC to look into litigant’s complaint of intimidation.

September 6: CJI to hear plea for live-streaming of Ayodhya title dispute case

September 14: A devotee’s faith cannot be questioned, says Supreme Court

September 16: Ayodhya parties want mediation talks to resume, mediation panel informs Supreme Court

September 17: Hindu parties’ arguments based on theology rather than legality and concrete proof, says counsel for Muslim parties, Rajeev Dhavan

September 18: Ram Chabutra becomes the focal point in Ayodhya hearing. Supreme Court allows mediation committee to resume talks

September 20: Court decides to sit for an extra hour daily to heed to the October 18 deadline

September 23: Court rises at 5pm instead of 4 pm, as decided last week. 

September 25: Muslim parties contest infirmity of report of Archaeological Survey of India; Court says can’t contest now, when issue was not raised in High Court

September 26: Justice Bobde mentioned the experts (ASI) have inferred. Archaeology is an inexact science. “The ASI cannot be considered authoritative,” Justice Bobde remarked, at which Ms. Arora immediately responded: “If that’s so, I rest my case!”  

September 30: ‘Ram Lalla’ counsel CS Vaidyanathan informs court of unwillingness to take part in fresh mediation; said they want a court verdict

October 4: Deadline for wrapping up arguments revised to 17th October

October 14: Administration has imposed Sec 144 of CrPC in Ayodhya, operative till 10th December. Muslim parties to conclude arguments today

November 17, 2019: CJI retires. Court verdict on Ayodhya issue expected to come anytime in mid  November.

India News

Akhilesh Yadav, Mayawati, Tejashwi Yadav mourns demise of Mukhtar Ansari, demand probe

Akhilesh Yadav mentioned that such doubtful cases should be investigated under the supervision of a Supreme Court judge.

Published

on

Mukhtar Ansari, gangster turned politician, who has been in jail since 2005, died due to cardiac arrest on Thursday. After Ansari’s death, his family alleged that the politician had been poisoned in the jail.  

Expressing sorrow, several opposition leaders demanded a probe into the death of Mukhtar Ansari. Notably, the gangster turned politician submitted an application in Barabanki court, alleging he was given some poisonous substance along with his food. He claimed that on March 19, his nerves and limbs started paining after he consumed the food.

Former Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar, Tejashwi Yadav wrote on X that a few days ago Mukhtar Ansari complained that he had been poisoned in jail, yet it was not taken seriously. He added that prima facie the move does not seem justifiable and humane. He stated that constitutional institutions should take suo motu cognizance of such strange cases and incidents.

Former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and Samajwadi Party Chief, Akhilesh Yadav said that the state is going through the worst phase of government anarchy. He added that it is the responsibility and duty of the government to protect someone’s life in every situation and at every place. 

The former Chief Minister added that the death of a hostage or prisoner while being confined in the police station, in a fight inside the jail, on falling ill inside the prison, while being taken to court, while being taken to hospital or during treatment in hospital will erode public confidence in the judicial process. He mentioned that such doubtful cases should be investigated under the supervision of a Supreme Court judge. He claimed that the way the government bypasses the judicial process and adopts other methods is completely illegal. 

Taking to social media platform X, Bahujan Samaj Party supremo Mayawati said that the persistent apprehensions and serious allegations made by Mukhtar Ansari’s family regarding his death in jail require a high-level investigation so that the facts in his death can be revealed. 

AIMIM leader Asaduddin Owaisi said that the people of Ghazipur lost their favourite son and brother. He added that Mukhtar Ansari had made serious allegations against the administration that he was poisoned, but the government did not pay any attention to his treatment.

Congress spokesperson Surendra Rajput stated that custodial deaths and firing in jail has become very common in Uttar Pradesh. He added that high level investigation should be conducted.

Continue Reading

India News

Uttar Pradesh on high alert after gangster turned politician Mukhtar Ansari death, probe ordered on poisoned in jail charge

Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP), Prashant Kumar said that as a precautionary measure, Section 144 of the CrPC has been imposed across the state.

Published

on

Several towns in Uttar Pradesh are on high alert and security has been strengthened after jailed gangster-turned-politician Mukhtar Ansari died of cardiac arrest. His family alleged that the gangster, who has been in jail since 2005, was poisoned. 

The jailed gangster was hurried to a hospital after he fell unconscious at district jail on Thursday night. After a few hours, he was declared dead by the doctors at the Rani Durgavati Medical College. 

Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP), Prashant Kumar said that as a precautionary measure, Section 144 of the CrPC has been imposed across the state. The Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has also been called in to assist the police. Reportedly, the CRPF units have already been deployed in Banda, Mau, Ghazipur, and Varanasi.

Additionally, the social media cell of the Uttar Pradesh Police is also on high alert to track unlawful elements that may try to spark a riot. Furthermore, a magisterial investigation into the death of Mukhtar Ansari will be carried out by a three member team, reports said.

A former five-time MLA from Mau Sadar seat Muktar Ansari, had 60 criminal cases pending against him. The gangster turned politician was sentenced in eight cases since September 2022 by different courts of Uttar Pradesh and was lodged in the Banda jail.

Earlier, the former five-time MLA from Mau submitted an application in Barabanki court, alleging he was given some poisonous substance along with his food. He claimed that on March 19, his nerves and limbs started paining after he consumed the food.

Muktar Ansari was born into a family with deep roots in the independence struggle. His grandfather served as the Indian National Congress president in 1927. He was initially affiliated with the Bahujan Samaj Party before forming the Quami Ekta Dal (QED) after being expelled.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi LG VK Saxena directs probe into remarks against Kangana Ranaut by Congress leader Supriya Shrinate

The Delhi Police will investigate who was behind the said social media post and whose mobile phone was used for the purpose.

Published

on

Delhi lieutenant governor Vinai Kumar Saxena today sought a detailed probe from Delhi Police commissioner Sanjay Arora in relation with the alleged defamatory social media post made by Congress’s Supriya Shrinate against actor-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut.

Reportedly, BJP candidate from New Delhi Bansuri Swaraj had given a complaint to the LG seeking probe and registration of an FIR against Shrinate for outraging the modesty of a woman. Subsequently, the Delhi LG has forwarded the complaint to the Delhi Police Commissioner, directing a scientific investigation in the matter and initiation of legal action, if necessary.

Reports said that the Delhi Police will also investigate who was behind the said social media post and whose mobile phone was used for the purpose. A major controversy erupted on Monday after an objectionable post from Supriya Shrinate’s social media handle against Kangana Ranaut, who has been announced as the BJP candidate from Himachal Pradesh’s Mandi.

Responding to the remarks, Kangana Ranaut said that they must free the daughters from the shackles of prejudices and must rise above the curiosity about their body parts. She added that people must refrain from using sex workers’ challenging lives or circumstances as some kind of abuse or slur. She concluded that every woman deserves her dignity. As the controversy intensified, the Congress leader asserted that someone else had posted the objectionable content from her handle. 

Meanwhile, the Election Commission on Wednesday issued a show cause notice to Congress leader Supriya Shrinate for her derogatory remarks against Kangana Ranaut. The Election Commission observed that the remarks are undignified and in a bad taste. The election body asked the Congress leader to respond to the commission by Friday. In the notice, the Election Commission stated that the statements made by the leader is prima facie violative of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) being in force ahead of the Lok Sabha elections. 

Continue Reading

Trending

-->

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com