Ayodhya verdict in Supreme Court LIVE Updates: A bench-headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra had reserved the verdict on July Ayodhya verdict updates: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in a majority judgement that the mosque-namaz case need not be referred to. Ayodhya Case: The Supreme Court verdict ended with majority, Justice Ashok Bhushan, who read out the judgement for himself and the.

Author: Tunris Jukazahn
Country: Chile
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Sex
Published (Last): 5 April 2013
Pages: 219
PDF File Size: 6.62 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.94 Mb
ISBN: 644-9-14654-772-3
Downloads: 1428
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meziramar

The Ayodhya dispute is a political, historical and socio-religious debate in India, centred on a plot judgdment land in the city of Ayodhyalocated in Ayodhya DistrictUttar Pradesh. It says observation was made on acquisition and not Islam religion.

Petitioners’ legal representative senior Rajeev Dhavan has arrived at the court. Uttar Pradesh portal Islam portal.

Live Updates: Supreme Court Refuses To Refer Ayodhya-Linked Case To 5-Judge Bench

The Ramjanmabhumi Movement and Fear of the Self. Bakker has named ayodhyya five temples as follows: Nairknown for his Hindu nationalist connections, refused to carry out orders, claiming that it would lead to communal riots. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts.

We appeal that this matter be resolved as soon as possible: Sep 27, To put it simply, if the top court agrees to reconsider the Ismail Faruqui judgment by a larger seven judge bench then that seven judge bench will have to decide whether mosque constitutes an essential part of Islam or not.


This SC has refused to refer the ruling to a larger bench. Defence Defence National International Industry. The most important implication of the SC order on ruling issue could be speeding up of the title case. Archived from the original on 2 October Retrieved 19 March Debates History of Uttar Pradesh Ayodhya dispute. The Supreme Court has set the date in January for the final hearing on the case. Ghaffar, Maulvi Abdul [first published prior to ]. A fourth suit was filed by the Muslim Central Board of Wakf for declaration and possession of the site.

Ayodhya holy site crisis”. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, will decide whether the dispute over the land, on which the 16th century Babri mosque stood prior to its demolition on December 6,is also required to be referred to a five-judge bench.

The way is now clear for the hearing of Ram janmabhoomi appeals: Is offering prayers in a mosque essential to Islamif not why not? Waiting for ‘almost a century’, says Additional Solicitor.

Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict: SC refuses to refer Ayodhya land dispute case to a larger bench

Justice Ashok Bhushan to deliver judgment. Retrieved 20 June The verdict on the case is expected around 2 pm. Ina three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2: Justice S Abdul Nazeer disagreed with the two judges and said whether mosque is integral to Islam has to be decided considering belief of religion and it requires detailed consideration.

A special bench of the top court headed by CJI Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra is examining a total of 14 appeals that have challenged the Allahabad High court’s judgment delivered in four civil suits. Whatever may be the outcome, the Supreme Court judgement will have a bearing on the country’s politics leading up to the Lok Sabha elections.


Retrieved from ” https: In ruling by the Supreme Court came in a case related to acquisition of land in and around the Babri Masjid. The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce on Thursday its verdict on a batch of pleas on the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute seeking reconsideration by a larger bench, the observations made by it in a verdict that a mosque was not integral to Islam.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan had appeared for legal representative of M Siddiq. The SC ruling makes no difference to the title suit. Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.

In December last year, lawyer and Congress politician Kapil Sibal had asked the court to defer hearing of the title case till completion of the Lok Sabha elections. In February, VHP proclaimed that a Shila or a stone will be established for construction of temple near the area.

In particular, multiple versions of Ayodhya Mahatmya magical powers of Ayodhya prescribed the celebration of Ram Navami the birthday of Rama. Hindu groups oppose pleas moved by Muslim counterparts. War on Sacred Grounds.