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, 2010: HC, 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

Sharad Pawar admitted to Mumbai hospital hours after Pune discharge

NCP (SP) chief Sharad Pawar was admitted to Mumbai’s Breach Candy Hospital hours after being discharged from Pune’s Ruby Hall Clinic, where he had been undergoing medical observation following complaints of cough and chest pain.

Published

on

Sharad Pawar

Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) chief Sharad Pawar was admitted to Mumbai’s Breach Candy Hospital on Wednesday, just hours after being discharged from Pune’s Ruby Hall Clinic. His daughter and Baramati MP Supriya Sule confirmed the development in a social media post, saying that the veteran politician was being admitted for further medical tests.

The 85-year-old leader had been discharged from Ruby Hall Clinic earlier on Wednesday after being admitted on November 2 following complaints of cough and pleuritic chest pain.

Confirming his admission to the Mumbai hospital, Supriya Sule said, “We are admitting Baba to Breach Candy Hospital for further tests. Thank you all for your concern and good wishes.”

Pawar’s latest hospitalisation came after he had undergone medical tests and observation during his stay at the Pune facility. Sule had earlier said that his health parameters were stable.

Why was Sharad Pawar admitted to hospital?

Sharad Pawar was initially admitted to Pune’s Ruby Hall Clinic on November 2 after experiencing complaints of cough and pleuritic pain, a form of chest pain that generally becomes worse while breathing, coughing or sneezing.

Dr Purvez K Grant, chief cardiologist, chairman and managing trustee of Ruby Hall Clinic, had said that Pawar was admitted for a general health check-up and medical observation following complaints of pleuritic pain.

During his hospital stay, Supriya Sule had informed that Pawar was undergoing medical tests and that his health parameters remained stable.

He was subsequently discharged from the Pune hospital on Wednesday. However, hours later, his family decided to admit him to Mumbai’s Breach Candy Hospital for further medical examinations.

PM Modi calls Sharad Pawar, advises complete rest

Prime Minister Narendra Modi also spoke to Sharad Pawar over the phone on Wednesday morning to enquire about his health.

According to Pawar’s aide Vitthal Maniyar, the Prime Minister spoke to the NCP (SP) chief and advised him to take complete rest.

Maniyar said Modi told Pawar that his daughter Supriya Sule and others were ready to take care of the country, and that the veteran politician should focus on his health.

Pawar thanked the Prime Minister for enquiring about his well-being, the aide said.

Maniyar also said that Pawar told Modi that he was resting and had no worries about the country, as others were there to take care of things.

The latest hospital admission was confirmed by Supriya Sule, who said her father was being taken to Breach Candy Hospital for further tests.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Ramayana Day 1 Box Office: Ranbir Kapoor film eyes Rs. 100 crore-plus opening

Ramayana is expected to make a strong start at the Indian box office, with trade experts projecting a Day 1 opening of around Rs. 100 crore to Rs. 125 crore. The film’s China prospects remain uncertain.

Published

on

Ramayana Teaser

Nitesh Tiwari’s Ramayana is heading for a potentially massive opening at the Indian box office, with trade experts predicting that the film could collect more than Rs. 100 crore on its first day.

The film, starring Ranbir Kapoor, Yash and Sai Pallavi, is scheduled for theatrical release on November 5. Produced by Namit Malhotra, the mythological epic has generated significant expectations because of its cast, scale, music and visual effects.

Trade analyst Ramesh Bala has given the most optimistic domestic opening estimate, expecting around Rs. 125 crore gross in India on Day 1. He believes the Hindi version and the film’s premium-format availability could help drive its opening, particularly across the Hindi-speaking markets.

Exhibitor and trade analyst Akshaye Rathi has offered a slightly more conservative estimate, putting the film’s nationwide opening at around Rs. 100 crore or more across languages. He noted that the pre-Diwali release period could influence the opening numbers because audiences are occupied with Diwali preparations and shopping.

Veteran trade analyst Komal Nahta also expects the film to reach the Rs. 100-crore range across languages. His estimate is around Rs. 60 crore for the Hindi version, with the total across all languages potentially reaching Rs. 100 crore or more.

Ramayana vs Dhurandhar 2

One of the key box-office questions is whether Ramayana can surpass the opening-day performance of Dhurandhar 2.

Trade experts are cautious about making that comparison. Bala expects a strong opening but pointed out that Dhurandhar 2 benefited from being a sequel and having substantial pre-release hype.

Nahta believes Ramayana is unlikely to surpass Dhurandhar 2 on Day 1, partly because of the timing of its release. Rathi also expects a strong start but highlighted the pre-Diwali period as a factor that could affect the film’s initial numbers.

These are trade projections, rather than confirmed box-office figures. The actual Day 1 collection will depend on occupancy, spot bookings and audience response after the film’s release.

Why Ramayana has strong box-office potential

The film has several factors working in its favour. Its cast includes Ranbir Kapoor as Ram, Sai Pallavi as Sita and Yash as Ravana, while Nitesh Tiwari is directing the project.

The film also features music by AR Rahman and visual effects from DNEG, giving it a large-scale cinematic presentation. Trade experts believe the combination of mythology, star power and spectacle could attract audiences across different sections of the country.

The familiarity of the Ramayana story is another major factor. Experts believe its cultural and emotional connection with Indian audiences gives the film an advantage that many other releases do not have.

What could happen in China?

China is one of the biggest uncertainties surrounding Ramayana’s overseas prospects.

Nitesh Tiwari’s previous film Dangal had a major run in China, but trade experts have differing views on whether that success can be repeated with Ramayana.

Ramesh Bala has taken a cautious position. He pointed out that Dangal’s success was influenced by several factors and that Ramayana’s mythological subject may not have the same familiarity among Chinese audiences.

Akshaye Rathi, however, sees considerable international potential. He believes that audiences outside India could approach the Ramayana as a fresh story and that effective international marketing could help the film connect with viewers in markets such as China.

Komal Nahta is also optimistic about China and believes the emotional journey of Sita could appeal to Chinese audiences.

The film’s potential in China therefore remains an expectation rather than a confirmed outcome. Its eventual performance will depend on the scale of its release, marketing and audience reception.

Can Ramayana recover its reported budget?

The film has been widely associated with a reported budget of around Rs. 4,000 crore, although trade experts caution that this figure could relate to the two-part project rather than the first instalment alone.

Ramesh Bala suggested that the reported Rs. 4,000 crore figure could cover both parts and said the exact allocation for the first film remains unclear. Komal Nahta estimated the cost of the first part at around Rs. 1,200 crore.

The experts also pointed to non-theatrical revenue, including OTT and satellite rights, as important factors in determining whether the project can recover its investment.

Can Ramayana become India’s biggest film?

The possibility of Ramayana challenging major box-office records is also being discussed ahead of its release.

Bala said the film has the ingredients to compete at the highest level, while Rathi believes it has the potential to become the highest-grossing Indian film worldwide. Nahta, however, has avoided making a definitive prediction before audiences see the film.

The experts also differed on the film’s eventual worldwide theatrical earnings. Bala suggested that it could potentially reach Rs. 1,000-1,500 crore, while Nahta gave an even broader possible range. Rathi did not put a specific figure on it but said the film could potentially reach the top tier of Indian cinema’s global box-office performers.

Ticket prices could affect the opening

Another factor attracting attention is the premium pricing for formats such as IMAX.

Ramesh Bala expects the makers to benefit from higher ticket prices during the initial period but believes prices could come down after the opening week.

Komal Nahta defended the strategy, arguing that the pricing could help a film that has involved such a large reported investment. Audiences who do not want to pay premium prices could instead opt for regular screenings.

Ramayana’s box-office verdict will depend on audience response

While the pre-release projections point towards a major opening, the longer-term performance of Ramayana will ultimately depend on audience reception and word of mouth.

The trade experts broadly agree that the film has the scale, cast and story required for a major theatrical run. However, its actual performance in India, China and other international markets can only be established after its release.

For now, the projections indicate that Ramayana could cross the Rs. 100-crore mark in India on its opening day, while its potential to become one of the biggest Indian films globally remains dependent on how audiences respond to the film.

Continue Reading

India News

Four militants killed as rival Naga groups clash in Manipur village

Four militants were killed in a gunfight between suspected rival Naga groups at Taodaijang village in Manipur’s Noney district on Wednesday.

Published

on

Manipur violence

At least four militants were killed in a gunfight between suspected rival Naga militant groups in Manipur’s Noney district on Wednesday, November 4.

The exchange of fire took place at Taodaijang village in the Khoupum area of the Naga-majority district. According to officials, the cadres involved were suspected to belong to rival Naga militant outfits, including the Zeliangrong United Front-Jenchui (ZUF-J) and the Zeliangrong United Front-Kamson (ZUF-K).

Initial reports indicated that the gunfight continued for several hours, leaving three cadres of ZUF-J and one cadre of ZUF-K dead.

The bodies of the deceased militants were subsequently recovered by local residents.

Residents appeal to armed groups to stop firing

Following the gunfight, local residents, including women, reached the spot in an attempt to prevent further violence between the rival groups.

They also used a public address system to appeal to the armed cadres to stop firing and prevent the situation from escalating further.

Further details about the circumstances surrounding the clash were awaited.

Manipur government reviews security situation

In a separate development, Manipur Chief Minister Yumnam Khemchand Singh directed senior security officials to identify active armed groups suspected of involvement in recent incidents of violence in the state.

The directive excluded groups engaged in peace talks with the state government.

The Chief Minister issued the instructions during a review meeting on the state’s law and order situation on Tuesday night.

He also asked security agencies, including the Army and central paramilitary forces, to submit a detailed report on the involvement of the suspected groups.

The Chief Minister said the state Cabinet could consider declaring such groups unlawful if their involvement in violence against innocent civilians was established.

He also emphasised that necessary action would be initiated against groups continuing to perpetrate violence against civilians.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com