Supreme Court defers Ayodhya dispute hearing to January 29 after Justice UU Lalit exits due to conflict of interest

The hearing in the dispute has now been fixed for January 29, when the five-judge bench will be reconstituted by substituting Justice Lalit with another SC judge.

Published: 10th January 2019 10:33 AM  |   Last Updated: 10th January 2019 03:04 PM   |  A+A-

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (File | PTI)

By PTI

NEW DELHI: The five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, formed to hear the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute in Ayodhya, on Thursday clarified that there was going to be no hearing. Only the date and the schedule of the case would be fixed today, said the apex court.

Justice U U Lalit, who was part of the five-judge Constitution Bench, recused himself, prompting the Supreme Court to reschedule the hearing on January 29 by setting up a fresh bench.

No sooner than the bench assembled, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for a Muslim party, told a bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi that Justice Lalit appeared for former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Kalyan Singh in 1994.

Though Dhavan said he was not seeking recusal of Justice Lalit, the judge himself opted out the hearing the matter. 

The bench will be headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and will comprise of Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, D Y Chandrachud and a yet-to-be-named judge in place of Justice Lalit.

READ HERE | Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case explained

Dhavan also drew the attention of the bench to the fact that the matter was earlier fixed for hearing before a three-judge bench but the CJI took a decision to list it before a five-judge Constitution Bench.

He further submitted that there was need for a judicial order to set up a five-judge Constitution bench.

The CJI, however, quoted Supreme Court rules mandating that any bench should comprise two judges and there was nothing wrong in constituting a five-judge Constitution bench.

In view of the the facts and circumstances of the matter and the voluminous records pertaining to it, this was a fit case for constituting a five-judge bench, he said.

In its order, the bench said the apex court registry will physically examine the records stored in 50 sealed trunks in the room, which has also been kept sealed.

The top court said the records pertaining to the matter are voluminous and some of the documents are in Sanskrit, Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Persian and Gurmukhi that need to be translated.

If required, the apex court registry can take the service of official translators, the bench said.

The apex court said in its order that 113 issues are likely to be perused during the hearing.

It also noted that 88 witnesses were examined and their statements recorded when the matter was before the Allahabad High Court.

It said the deposition of the witnesses runs into 2,886 pages and 257 documents were exhibited.

The apex court noted that the high court judgement itself is 4,304 pages; along with additional annexures it runs into 8,000 pages.

A three-judge bench of the top court had on September 27 last year, by 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench for reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.

When the matter was last taken up on January 4, there was no indication that the case would be referred to a constitution bench as the apex court had simply said that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by "the appropriate bench, as may be constituted".

The newly set up five-judge bench comprises not only the incumbent CJI but the four judges who are in line to be CJI in the future.

Justice Gogoi's successor would be Justice Bobde followed by Justices Ramana, Lalit and Chandrachud.

As many as 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

The apex court on October 29 last year had fixed the matter in the first week of January before the "appropriate bench".

Later, an application was moved for according an urgent hearing by advancing the date, but the top court had refused the plea, saying it had already passed an order on October 29 relating to the hearing of the matter.

The plea for early hearing was moved by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM) which is one of the respondents in the appeal filed by legal heirs of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants in the case.

Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site.

Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had suggested that any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process.

Modi's comments had come amidst heightened demands by Hindutva organisations, including the RSS, for an ordinance for an early construction of the temple.

"Let the judicial process take its own course. Don't weigh it in political terms. Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as government, we are ready to make all efforts," the prime minister had said during an interview, broadcast by several TV channels.

(With inputs from online desk)

Stay up to date on all the latest Nation news with The New Indian Express App. Download now
(Get the news that matters from New Indian Express on WhatsApp. Click this link and hit 'Click to Subscribe'. Follow the instructions after that.)

Comments

Disclaimer : We respect your thoughts and views! But we need to be judicious while moderating your comments. All the comments will be moderated by the newindianexpress.com editorial. Abstain from posting comments that are obscene, defamatory or inflammatory, and do not indulge in personal attacks. Try to avoid outside hyperlinks inside the comment. Help us delete comments that do not follow these guidelines.

The views expressed in comments published on newindianexpress.com are those of the comment writers alone. They do not represent the views or opinions of newindianexpress.com or its staff, nor do they represent the views or opinions of The New Indian Express Group, or any entity of, or affiliated with, The New Indian Express Group. newindianexpress.com reserves the right to take any or all comments down at any time.

flipboard facebook twitter whatsapp