Diminishing the prospects of an out-of-court settlement of the vexed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Majid issue, Muslim bodies are gearing up to file five more Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court to challenge the Allahabad High Court verdict.
The verdict by a special court in the Babri Masjid demolition case comes 28 years after kar sevaks razed the 16th century mosque and almost a year after the Supreme Court settled the land case in favour of a Ram temple at the disputed Ayodhya site.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan told the bench that Justice Lalit appeared for former UP CM Kalyan Singh in 1994.
Following is the timeline of events in the case in which the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the Special Investigation Team's (SIT) clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and 63 others in the 2002 riots in the state.
Justice S A Bobde will not be available on January 29.
The SC has banned all religious activity in the 77 acres of land acquired by the government after the Babri mosque's demolition.
'They (BJP) think that they can do anything in this country. The Constitution is being subverted'
In a fresh plea on Tuesday, the Centre said it had acquired 67 acres of land including the 2.77 acre disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid site and sought permission of the top court to return the excess land to its original owners.
The Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, one of the main litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, on Saturday said it will move the Supreme Court against the verdict of the Allahabad high court by November 10. "The Mahasabha would file its appeal in the apex court against the high court verdict by November 10 and has authorised its national leader Dinesh Chandra Tyagi to pursue the case," state unit president of the Mahasabha Kamlesh Tewari said.
If the 'shebaitship' of Nirmohi Akhara was accepted, then their evidence will also be accepted, the bench said on the 20th day of the hearing in the politically-sensitive case.
The Supreme Court on Friday sought a response from the Centre and Uttar Pradesh government on a plea for removing alleged unreasonable restrictions imposed by the authorities in Ayodhya on worshipping Lord Rama in the temple at the disputed site.A bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices A K Ganguly and B S Chauhan also issued notices to the Faizabad district commissioner and others, on an application filed by Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy.
"I am supporting the Hindu side," lawyer M C Dhingra, appearing for Shia Wakf Board, told the bench.
Panning 'loudmouths' for their chatter on an out-of-court resolution to the Ram temple issue, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday said the Supreme Court is hearing the Ram Mandir case and called for having faith in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court on Monday said it would hear on July 14 pleas, including the one filed by the sister of slain gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmad and Ashraf, seeking constitution of a commission chaired by a retired apex court judge to inquire into their "custodial" and "extra-judicial deaths".
The case pertains to the Union government's plea for vacation of the stay on any kind of religious activity in the 67 acres of acquired land around the disputed structure.
Why did Modi single out the Congress and its leaders for the most pugnacious verbal assault while sparing other regional adversaries? If he is trying to get some parties to break the Opposition ranks, it means that the BJP's present bravado is for effect. Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, author of Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times, begins a new column for Rediff.com.
The Union government has sought vacation of the SC's interim order banning all kinds of religious activities in the 67-acre acquired land around the disputed structure in Ayodhya.
"Suppose the suit of Ram Lalla goes then you have no independent claim... You can't survive if the deity does not survive."
The Centre had sought an early hearing in view of the VHP's dharam sansad, slated for February 22.
The Babri Masjid Action Committee meeting was held against the backdrop of the apex court recently asking parties involved to sit together and arrive at a consensus on the issue, which has been dragging on for decades.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud, Surya Kant, and P S Narasimha made the important observation during an hour-long hearing of the Gyanvapi mosque dispute and said that it has dealt with provisions of the Places of Worship Act in its 2019 Ayodhya verdict and section 3 does not expressly bar ascertaining of the religious character of the place of worship.
The Supreme Court will hear on April 5 a batch of PILs challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law that prohibits filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
It further said that the epic Valmiki's Ramayana, whose composition dated back to the period Before Christ (BC), was the main source of knowledge of Lord Ram and his deeds.
The Supreme Court on Thursday wondered why the Gujarat high court has listed the bail plea of activist Teesta Setalvad for hearing on September 19, six weeks after it sent a notice to the state government seeking a response to her application, and asked the state to inform it by 2 pm on Friday about whether such a precedent existed there.
"This has to be deprecated. This is something which should not be happening," a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.
Setalvad was taken into custody on June 25 last year along with former Gujarat Director General of Police R B Sreekumar and ex-IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt in an offence registered by Ahmedabad crime branch police for allegedly fabricating evidence to frame "innocent people" in the post-Godhra riots cases.
The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear on September 9 a plea challenging certain provisions of the 1991 law which prohibit filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
The stand adopted by both the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) and Bhartiya Janata Party vice president Vinay Katiyar has clearly frustrated the peace initiatives taken by the two sides to bring an end to the vexed Ram Janmbhoomi- Babri Masjid issue without seeking further adjudication by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday asked the Centre to furnish by October 31 its affidavit in response to petitions challenging the validity of certain provisions of a 1991 law, which prohibit filing of a lawsuit to reclaim a place of worship or seek a change in its character from what prevailed on August 15, 1947.
Such a course would require a Constitutional Amendment, requiring a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. Even assuming that the INDIA combine comes to power at the Centre next year, a two-thirds majority in the Lok Sabha could way off the mark for them, observes N Sathiya Moorthy.
Mohan Bhagwat said the temple would be constructed in the same grandeur as it existed before, using the "same stones" under the guidance of those who were the flag-bearers of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement for the last 25 years.
When there is a conflict between the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act and the Mohammedan law that allows a Muslim girl to marry on attaining puberty at the age of 15, which will hold the field?
'The judicial procedure was influenced which led to no convictions in the anti-Sikh riots of 1984'
A special court in Gujarat on Thursday acquitted all the 67 accused, including former Bharatiya Janata Party minister Maya Kodnani, in the 2002 Naroda Gam riots case in which 11 people were killed.
'Hindus have fought for almost 500 years for the land and today our dream has been realised.'
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to extend the security of former special judge S K Yadav who had pronounced the verdict in the Babri Masjid demolition case and acquitted all 32 accused, including Bharatiya Janata Party veterans L K Advani, M M Joshi and Uma Bharti.
"Crossing that 'Lakshman rekha' many times, this is especially more worrisome," the judge, who has recently been elevated to the top court, said.
The senior advocate had on Tuesday told the court that the birth place of Lord Ram is also a deity and Muslims cannot claim right over the 2.77-acre disputed land in Ayodhya as any division of the property would amount to "destruction" and "mutilation" of the deity itself.
The 1991 provision is an Act to prohibit conversion of any place of worship and to provide for the maintenance of the religious character of any place of worship as it existed on August 15, 1947, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The apex court has set October 18 as deadline for completion of all arguments in the protracted land title dispute, a move that has raised the possibility of a verdict in the politically sensitive case in the middle of November.
© 2026 Rediff.com - Investor Information - Advertise with us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - Sitemap - Feedback - About us - Terms of use - Grievances