The bench will be headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and also comprise of Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the bench said it has not received the information from the high court yet.
He also said that after the "historic verdict", the country has moved ahead on a new path, with a new resolve.
Criticising the high court verdict on partition of disputed land at Ayodhya and terming it 'strange', the apex court said that the partition of disputed land had "opened a litany of litigation.".
They might have been fighting in the courts for ages to stake their respective claims over the much-debated Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya, but the rivals have heartily welcomed the view taken by the apex court on the issue.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday claimed that the Congress and Samajwadi Party will run a bulldozer over the Ram temple if elected to power, and asked them to take 'tuition' from Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath 'where to run bulldozers'.
Two main litigants of the Ayodhya title suit case, Mahant Gyan Das and Hashim Ansari, on Friday said they would put forth a formula before the Supreme Court to resolve the vexed issue.
The All India Muslim Personal Board and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, key parties to Ayodhya title suits, on Saturday appeared set to move the Supreme Court against the Allahabad high court verdict, even as some litigants are exploring possibilities of an amicable solution.
The plea by Ramesh Chandra Tripathi for an out-of-court settlement in the Ayodhya case was mentioned in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, and the counsel for applicant, Prashanth Chandra, was told to approach the court registrar who will assign the matter to the appropriate bench.A bench of Justices Altmas Kabir and A K Patanik told the applicant that they could not hear the matter since it was a civil suit.
"We are of the view that the Supreme Court's March 13/14, 2002 order should be operative till the Allahabad high court disposes the Ayodhya title suits," the court said.
The 1994 judgment envisaged status quo only on the 2.77 acres of disputed area, the Centre pleaded.
The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad high court to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep and maintenance of the disputed Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid site in Ayodhya.
The bench said after perusing the report, if it came to a conclusion that an amicable solution through mediation was not possible, then the apex court would commence day-to-day hearing in the matter from July 25.
"It can stay awake till midnight to hear the Yakub Memon case and it can extend the hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi title case for three months, while crores of Indians wait for it."
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered replacement of "old and worn out" tarpaulin sheet, ropes and other material with new ones.
The Allahabad high court, in its judgment of 2010 on four civil lawsuits, had partitioned the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
While closing the contempt proceedings, the bench observed that the matter ought to have come up for hearing earlier.
Swamy said the 'outer limit' to settle the issue is April 2018, without explaining further.
It has also sought a status report from the state government on 183 "police encounters" that have taken place since 2017.
The Supreme Court will constitute a special bench to hear the controversial Ayodhya title suit by the end of September. Dr S Q R Ilyas, convenor of the committee on Babri Masjid, told media personnel that because of some procedural delays, the court would resume hearing by that time. Though attempts to reach an out-of-court settlement have been made in the past, there was no possibility of that now, he said.
The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad high court's September 30 ruling on the Ayodhya title suit, which has given one third of the disputed land to Muslims. Hindu Mahasabha'a national president Swami Chakra Pani has moved the apex court, challenging the verdict which ruled for a three-way division of the disputed land around and underneath the demolished Babri mosque with two parts to Hindus and one to Muslims.
"Moves of conciliation are unacceptable to all the parties involved...previous meetings to resolve the issue through talks have remained futile. The option of talks is not open so far," VHP president Ashok Singhal said in New Delhi.
In the caveat, the Hindu Mahasabha has asked the court not to pass order on any appeal against the September 30 Allahabad high court verdict without hearing it.
The SC underlined that it has no control over what Mughal ruler Babar did.
The first of the many appeals in the Ayodhya title suit was filed on Monday before the Supreme Court by the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, the second plaintiff in the case. Challenging the landmark verdict of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court, JuH in its appeal has stated that the HC veered away from the facts and law and focused more on the circumstances and the extraneous material.
The Wakf Board, a litigant in the Ayodhya title suit, held an emergency meeting here and decided to challenge the High Court's verdict in the Supreme Court, Wakf Board Chairman Zafar Ahmad Farooqui told PTI.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted, in accordance with its May 9 order, notices have been published in local newspapers, including those in Gujarati and English, against the convicts who could not be served (the notice).
Senior Bharatiya Janata Party leader L K Advani on Saturday said he failed to understand why the Supreme Court has deferred pronouncement of the verdict on the Ayodhya title suit when the nation has been waiting for a decision on the dispute since decades.
A bench comprising Justices R V Raveendran and H L Gokhale stayed the verdict for a week following conflicting views over the issue of entertaining the petition challenging the high court order.
Supreme Court judge, Justice R V Raveendran, gave this order while hearing the petition filed by retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chand Tripathi to defer the title suit verdict.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court may have rejected Ramesh Chandra Tripathi's plea for postponing the Ayodhya verdict and to explore possibilities of an out-of-court amicable settlement, but the 73-year-old man has still not lost hope and he is air-dashing to New Delhi, renewing his appeal before the highest court of the land.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad was on Monday refused permission by the Uttar Pradesh government to organise a yatra from Ayodhya to push for the construction of a Ram Temple at the disputed site, just days after it asked Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav to work as a bridge between Hindus and Muslims on the issue.
The court also adjourned hearing on a petition seeking review of its earlier order upholding transfer of Ayodhya case trial to Rae Bareilly.
The ASI, which had found artefacts, idols, pillars and other remains, stated in its report about the existence of a massive structure beneath the 'alleged Babri Masjid'.
Hindu bodies except Nirmohi Akhara have opposed the suggestion of the apex court to refer the issue for mediation, while Muslim bodies have supported it.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to give an early hearing to Bharatiya Janata Party leader Subramanian Swamy's plea seeking facilities for the devotees visiting the disputed site in Ayodhya.
The submission was vehemently opposed by senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, representing deity 'Ram Lalla', who said: "This is totally unwarranted".
Even as the All India Muslim Personal Law Board on Saturday unanimously resolved to take the Ayodhya battle to the Supreme Court, it sought to clarify that the board was not opposed to an out-of -court compromise, albeit with certain pre-conditions.
The Bharatiya Janata Party wants the Supreme Court's Ayodhya deferment order vacated, said senior party leader Arun Jaitley, while stressing that he had a "limited mandate" fom the party in making such a statement.
© 2026 Rediff.com - Investor Information - Advertise with us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - Sitemap - Feedback - About us - Terms of use - Grievances