Babri Masjid demolition was just an incident: SC

New Delhi: The Babri Masjid demolition is just an incident and there is nothing famous or infamous about it, the Supreme Court said on Monday while listing Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) plea for levelling charges of criminal conspiracy against senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader LK Advani, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray and 18 others to March 27.
"What is famous about it. It was an incident which happened and parties are before us. It is not famous or infamous," a bench of Justices HL Dattu and CK Prasad said when the Additional Solicitor General said at the beginning of the proceeding that the matter is related to "famous" Babri Masjid demolition case.
The proceeding before the bench could not go on as it was mentioned that some of the parties in the case have not filed their response and the case was then adjourned.

The apex court had on March 4, 2011 issued notice to 21 people including Advani, Thackeray, Kalyan Singh, Uma Bharti, Satish Pradhan, CR Bansal, MM Joshi, Vinay Katiyar, Ashok Singhal, Giriraj Kishore, Sadhvi Ritambhara, VH Dalmia, Mahant Avaidhynath, RV Vedanti, Param Hans Ram Chandra Das, Jagdish Muni Maharaj, BL Sharma, Nritya Gopal Das, Dharam Das, Satish Nagar and Moreshwar Save.
The court had asked all of them to file their response on why criminal conspiracy charges should not be revived against them in the Babri Masjid demolition case.
It had passed the order on an appeal filed by CBI challenging the May 21, 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement upholding a special court's decision to drop the charges against the leaders.
The High Court had at that time, however, allowed the CBI to proceed with the other charges against Advani and others in a Rae Bareily court since the disputed structure falls under its jurisdiction.
Challenging the High Court order, the CBI has said in its petition that "it appears an artificial distinction was made by the trial court attempting to assign a role in respect of each of the accused persons and to see which offences were made out.
It said that the trial court had erroneously come to the conclusion that 21 persons were not entitled to be tried in the case (pertaining to the demolition on December 6, 1992).
"The order passed by the High Court results in serious miscarriage of justice, violates the principle of consolidated investigation, consolidated charge sheet and also disables an effective trial," the petition said.
The May 2010 order of the High Court had said there was no merit in the CBI's revision petition challenging the May 4, 2001 order of the special court which directed dropping of criminal conspiracy charges against them.
There are two sets of cases - one against Advani and others who were on the dais at Ram Katha Kunj in Ayodhya in December 1992 when the Babri Masjid was demolished, while the other case was against lakhs of unknown 'karsevaks' who were in and around the disputed structure.
The CBI had chargesheeted Advani and 20 others under sections 153A IPC (promoting enmity between classes), 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) and 505 (false statements, rumours etc circulated with the intent to cause mutiny or disturb public peace).
But it subsequently invoked charges under Section 120 B (Criminal Conspiracy) which was quashed by the Special Court whose decision was upheld by the High Court.
The High Court while upholding the special court's order had said that the CBI at no point of time, either during the trial at Rae Bareily or in its revision petition, ever stated that there was offence of criminal conspiracy against the leaders.

Continue reading...

India's Supreme Court court suspends Ayodhya ruling

India's Supreme Court has suspended a ruling over the fate of the Ayodhya holy site, where Hindu zealots destroyed a mosque in 1992.

Last December the Allahabad High Court said the land should be divided and that the razed 16th Century Babri Masjid should not be rebuilt.
Hindu and Muslim groups appealed against that verdict, which the court on Monday described as "strange".
This case was launched well before 1992 and centres around who owns the land.
But the destruction of the mosque sparked off some of the worst communal violence in recent Indian history - nearly 2,000 people died in subsequent religious riots across the country.
In December's ruling the Allahabad court said that the site should be split, with the Muslim community getting control of a third, Hindus gaining control of another third and the remainder going to a minority Hindu sect, Nirmohi Akhara, which was one of the early groups to pursue a share of the land in the case.
On Monday, the Supreme Court put the judgement on hold, saying it was "strange". It also said that the division of the disputed land has "opened a litany of litigation".
Hindus claim the site of the Babri Masjid is the birthplace of their deity, Ram, and want to build a temple there.
Muslim groups have argued that the Allahabad court's ruling appeared to be based not on evidence but on the professed beliefs of Hindus.

Continue reading...

Ayodhya: Hindu Mahasabha files caveat in Supreme Court

Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha has filed a caveat in the Supreme Court to pre-empt any ex-parte order on the Ayodhya title dispute.

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 organisation has filed the caveat through its national president Swami Chakrapani.

General secretary of Hindu Mahasabha Indira Tiwari said a petition is also likely to be filed making it clear that it was not in favour of any compromise on the issue and wants a legal solution to the whole dispute.

“We want only legal solution. We are against any type of compromise as we are in favour of constructing a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya,” she said.

She said the Hindu Mahasabha would like to achieve its objective through the cooperation of all those who were party to the suit in the High Court.

Continue reading...

Waqf board to appeal against Ayodhya verdict in a month

New Delhi:  Within a month the Sunni Central Waqf Board will appeal against the Ayodhya verdict in Supreme Court. The All-India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has decided to become an intervener in the appeal to be moved by the Waqf Board.

On October 9, a crucial AIMPLB meeting is scheduled in Delhi, to discuss the Allahabad High Court's judgment threadbare.

The three key points for appeal it appears are:

• Faith not evidence was the basis of verdict on the birthplace on Ram
• Muslims had possession of inner courtyard until 1949, when idols were placed secretly
• Also the Waqf Board will challenge the High Court's verdict that the mosque had been built against the tenets of Islam

Read more at: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/waqf-board-to-appeal-against-ayodhya-verdict-in-a-month-57014?cp

Continue reading...

Litigants call for burying Ayodhya dispute

“Let’s bury this 60-year-old dispute here and make a fresh start.” This was how Mohd. Hashim Ansari (90), one of the main litigants in the Ayodhya title suits, responded to the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute.

And the sentiments voiced by the oldest litigant in the case were shared with same vigour by elderly leaders of two key parties to the title suit —Mahant Bhaskar Das (84) of Nirmohi Akhara and Mahant Nitya Gopal Das (70), Chairman of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.

Though satisfied with the verdict, all the three aged litigants in the title suit agree that the matter will ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

“The decision is good for the common man and has saved him from the unnecessary bawal (problems) that could have erupted as a repercussion of the judgement,” Mahant Bhaskar Das of Nirmohi Akhara told PTI at Nakka Hanuman Ghari temple in Faizabad.

Mahant Bhaskar Das, sitting calmly on the cot with a handful of supporters, said he heaved a sigh of relief as Ram lalla was still the viraajman at his place and his position was not disturbed.

“I wanted everyone to respect the decision but as Sunni Wakf Board and Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasbha have decided to move the SC, we may have to follow suit,” the Mahant said.

Mr. Ansari, who lives in a small house within a five kilometre radius of Ram Lalla site in Ayodhya, also wants an end to legal battle.

“Personally I am of the view that this 60-year-old dispute should be buried here and a new start should be made,” Mr. Ansari said.

He blamed the political parties for politicising an important issue.

“This issue cannot be sorted out as long as politics is involved,” he said.

Though Mr. Ansari favours that there should be an end to the dispute he said the issue will reach the apex court as the court has mentioned about division of the land

“The suits should have been decided in favour of the either parties. As division of the land has been mentioned in the judgement there is no other option than to move the SC,” he said.

Mahant Gopal Das said he was satisfied with the Court’s decision and it should be accepted by all.

“The final decision could be reached by compromise after talks”, said Gopal Das, who lives in Srimani Ramdas Chhavni, where security personnel were seen relaxing on chairs with no palpable tension in the air.

However, like Mr. Ansari and Mahant Bhaskar Das, he too may move the apex court.

“We welcome the verdict, but will challenge the decision to give one third land to the Sunni Waqf Board in the apex court,” Mahant Gopal Das said.

Continue reading...

Ayodhya verdict: Both sides to move SC

Sunni Waqf Board counsel Zafaryab Jilani on Thursday termed the Allahabad High Court verdict on the Ayodhya title suits as “disappointing” and said they would move the Supreme Court against the order.
“We have three months, we will certainly move the Supreme Court,” Jilani told reporters. He said the verdict was “against the settled principles of law and evidence adduced by the Muslim side”.
The court dismissed the Waqf Board’s claim by a 2-1 majority.
“We are of the firm view that no public resentment is required as the matter can be taken to the Supreme Court and there is no reason for any loss of hope in favour of the mosque,” Jilani said, adding the majority decision to give Muslims one-third land was not acceptable to the Waqf Board.
He said they would examine the text of the judgment in detail and discuss the matter with the All India Muslim Personal law Board and the Babri Masjid Action Committee.

Continue reading...

Federation to keep Babri mosque land: India court

LUCKNOW: Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed appeal of `Sunni Waqf Board` by 2-1 majority in the Ramjanambhoomi-Babri Masjid case today, our sources reported Thursday.

The land will be divided into three parts, one-third portion will go to Hindus, another one-third to Muslims and the last one-third to the other, until then, the land will remain in the custody of the federal government.

The court said in its verdict the issue between the Hindus and Muslims should be resolved through negotiations between the two sides.

According to Indian media, the judges who gave the verdict tendered the resignation.

The controversial land of Babri Masjid will remain in possession of the federation, as the case of Sunni Board has been dismissed, according to media reports.

Hundreds of journalists from across the country converged at the District Magistrate`s office in Qaiserbagh area here to report on the verdict in the decades old Ramjanmabhoomi- Babri Masjid title suit.

Elaborate arrangements have been put in place and a special `pandal` that can accommodate 500 journalists and camerapersons has been erected right opposite the court premises.

Multi-layered security apparatus has been activated around the High Court premises where entry of persons has been restricted. Barricades have been put up on roads leading to the High Court.

Several shops and business establishments, which were open earlier in the day, downed their shutters as the time of the verdict advanced.

Inside the court premises, the passage leading to Court No. 21, where the verdict in the six-decade-old case was pronounced, has been cordoned off and entry has been allowed only to the parties to the dispute and their lawyers.

Heavy presence of police personnel was seen on the way near Court Nos. 18, 19 and 20 and the special Ramjanmabhoomi- Babri Masjid section near Court No. 21.

Bomb disposal squads and sniffer dogs made rounds of the Court No 21 before Justices D V Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and S U Khan pronounced the verdict.

There was a large police presence in the DM office but journalists seemed to outnumber them as scribes armed with laptops and microphones were seen milling around the area waiting for the verdict.

Police were allowing entry to journalists inside the premises through a small gate at the rear side of the DM Office compound after checking the identity cards.

The destruction of the Babri Mosque at Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, in 1992, demonstrated the power of religious fundamentalism in India, which prides itself on its democracy and religious tolerance.

Then, 150,000 Kar Sevaks, or volunteers, followed LK Advani and other leaders of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party to Ayodhya, where they destroyed the Babri Mosque and electrified Indian politics for the two decades which followed.

In the immediate aftermath, riots claimed more than 2,000 lives in cities throughout India. In Mumbai, terrorists killed more than 250 people in a series of bombings believed to have been in retaliation for Muslim deaths in the post-Ayodhya riots.

Riots flared again in Gujarat in 2002 after Muslims burned alive 59 Hindus they believed were returning from desecrating the mosque at Ayodhya. More than a thousand people were killed in riots throughout the state.

The dispute dates back to 1853, more than 300 years after the mosque was built by one of Emperor Babur`s generals following their defeat of a local Hindu king.

According to Hindu campaigners, Lord Rama, one of their most revered deities, was born on the site, and an 11th Century Ram temple stood there until it was destroyed by troops loyal to Babur, the Muslim conqueror and India`s first Mughal emperor. The general, Mir Baqi, named the mosque in his emperor`s honour, but it became more commonly known as `Masjid -i-Janmasthan` – Mosque of the Birthplace – in acknowledgement of Rama`s birth there.

Since the first Hindu-Muslim clash was recorded over the issue in 1853, there have been intermittent protests and petitions by each side to establish their claim to the site.

The case which was decided at Allahabad High Court today was launched in 1992 and sought to determine the rightful title owner of the plot, whether the site was the birthplace of Lord Rama, and whether the mosque was built on the site of an ancient Hindu temple.

End.

Continue reading...

Babri: Constitution disregarded

The destruction of the was a serious crime under Sec 295, IPC. The destruction violated the Constitution as it denied to every Muslim or a section thereof, the freedom of religion guaranteed to them by Articles 25 and 26 of our Constitution. The destruction of the masjid put an end to all previous controversies raised by Hindu organisations about their alleged right to erect a temple on the place where the masjid stood. This is because no court will give any assistance to those who unilaterally by criminal acts destroyed the subject matter of the dispute and violated the Constitution and the law.

After December 6, 1992, the earlier controversies were replaced by one question: What was the duty of the central government once the Babri Masjid had been destroyed by the unconstitutional acts of a fanatical Hindu mob? To this, there can be only one answer: the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt, and Prime Minister (P V Narasimha Rao) gave that answer on December 7, 1992, when he said that he considered it his duty to rebuild the Babri Masjid.

Far from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet discharging their duty to rebuild the Babri Masjid by taking valid legal steps to make such rebuilding possible, they have sidetracked the real question, thereby evading their clear duty. On January 7, 1993, the President promulgated The Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ordinance, 1993.

Also, on January 7, 1993, the President , acting under Article 143(1), referred the following question for the advisory opinion of the Supreme Court: “Whether a Hindu temple or any Hindu religious structure existed prior to the construction of the Ramjanmabhumi-Babri Masjid (including the premises of the inner and outer courtyards of such structure) in the areas on which the structure stood?” Some of the recitals to the Ordinance state that the lands at Ayodhya were being acquired to maintain publicorderandtopromotecommunalharmony and common brotherhood amongst the people of . The Ordinance and President’s reference are interconnected, for recital 5 to the reference states that notwithstanding the vesting of the area acquired in the central government, the Centre “proposestosettlethesaiddisputeafterobtaining the opinion of the and in terms of the said opinion” .

The Ordinance and the President’s reference cannot possibly achieve the objectives set out in those measures. First, it is well settled that an advisory opinion binds nobody, not even the Supreme Court. Secondly, no court, much less the Supreme Court, would answer a question which required the court to carry out research not only in 500 years of history and archaeology but also in myths and legends contained in epic poems and in folk lore. Further, under Article 143(1), the Supreme Court may give its opinion but is not bound to do so. If, as is almost certain, the Supreme Court declines to give its opinion, the Ordinance and the reference cannot achieve the central government’s objective ofsettlingthedisputeinthelightofthatopinion . Further, the central government cannot settle the Babri Masjid dispute. It can be settled only in one of three ways:

By the parties to it setting out their respective cases for the decision of a competent court, and the Supreme Court is not a competent court of original jurisdiction for this purpose. Secondly, the parties can agree to the dispute being settled by arbitration. And, thirdly, the parties can settle the dispute on thetermsagreeduponbetweenthemselves. Therefore, the Ordinance and reference cannot resolve the Babri Masjid dispute.

The Ordinance is void because it violates the fundamental rights of Muslims and Muslim denominations to the freedom of religion conferred on them by Articles 25 and 26. Clause 3 of the Ordinance vests the area acquired in Ayodhya in the central government . Clause 4(1), inter alia, vests all movable and immovable property in the acquired area in the central government. Clause 4(2), inter alia, extinguishes all trusts on which such property is held. Also, all restrictionsimposedontheuseofsuchproperty by any court, tribunal or other authority would cease to have effect.

Clause 4(3) puts an end to all pending suits, appeals or other proceedings in relation to the properties vested in the central government. Clause 9 states that the provisions of the Ordinance states that the provisions of the Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith in any other law or in any decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority.

But the provisions of the Ordinance cannot override the provisions of our Constitution . The SC has held in cases too numerous to mention that any law which extinguishes a religious trust or removes the trustees or managers of properties movable and immovable belonging to a religious trust is void, as violating Articles 25 and 26.

Continue reading...

Ayodhya verdict: Nearly 3000 troublemakers held in Mumbai

The Mumbai Police has rounded up nearly 3000 troublemakers in the city since last night, taking the total number of preventive arrests in view of the Ayodhya verdict to 7000.
Till yesterday, over 4000 troublemakers were apprehended under preventive measures to avert any eventuality in the aftermath of the Allahabad High Court verdict, police said. "Since last night, nearly 3000 more were picked up. We are leaving no stone unturned to maintain peace and harmony. All those picked up were categorised as troublemakers who may have caused law and order problem after the verdict," Deputy Police Commissioner (Operations) Rajkumar Vhatkar said.
The city had witnessed large-scale riots post-Babri Masjid demolition in 1992.
Elaborate security arrangements have been made here with security personnel equipped with guns, lathis and riot control equipment keeping a strict vigil across the city. Besides city police force, State Reserve Police Force, Rapid Action Force and Riot Control Force will be on the job to control the situation in case of any untoward incident, he said, adding elite forces such as the state's terror response teams Force One and Quick Response Teams have been kept on standby.
Notices have been served to nearly 1200 persons, some of them associated with political parties, under section CrPC 149 warning against indulging in any activity that causes law and order problem in the city. Prohibitory orders were also issued under section 144 of CrPC, putting restrictions on the assembly of people and preventing people from carrying out any activity that hurts religious sentiments of a community, police said.
"One should not do anything such as bursting fire crackers and organising processions in favour or against the judgement," Vhatkar said.

Continue reading...

AYODHYA VERDICT: Disputed site trifurcated, Ram idol to stay

Lucknow: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition of the Sunni Waqf Board and said that the disputed site was the birth of Lord Ram and holds immense importance for Hindus.

Bringing to an end the suspense over the 60-year-old Ramjanmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Thursday pronounced its verdict. he 2.7 acre area in Ayodhya has been divided into three parts. One area would go to the Nirmohi Akhara, one to Hindus and third to Muslims’ Waqf Board.

But the three-judge Bench comprising Justice SU Khan, Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Justice DV Sharma unanimously agreed that the particular area where the idols are installed is the birthplace of Lord Ram and would remain with the Hindus.

This means that the idols will not be removed from the site and the Hindus are free to build a temple there.

The parties have three months to appeal against the verdict.

Today’s judgment came after the last hurdle in its pronouncement was cleared by the Supreme Court Tuesday when it dismissed the petition by a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi for deferment of the keenly-awaited verdict.

The Ayodhya dispute, which has been an emotive issue for decades and mired in a slew of legal suits involving Hindu and Muslim religious groups, dates back to the year 1528 when a mosque was built on the site by Mughal emperor Babar, which Hindus claim to be a birth place of Lord Ram and believe to be the spot where a Hindu temple existed since 11th Century.

Continue reading...

Ayodhya land to be divided into three parts: HC

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has ordered that the disputed holy site in Ayodhya be divided into three parts: one-third for Hindu Mahasabha, one-third for Sunni Waqf Board and one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara.

The three-member bench of the Allahabad High Court,

comprising justices SU Khan, Sudhir Agarwal and DV Sharma today delivered a split verdict in 60-year old Ayodhya title suit.

The majority ruled that the disputed land in Ayodhya was a joint property, held by all the three claimants namely Hindu Mahasabha , Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Central Waqf Board. Justice SU Khan said that the mosque was built by Babar, not by demolishing a temple , but on the ruins of a temple.

According to Chief Standing Counsel of the UP Government, Devendra Upadhaya, the two judges namely Justices Khan and Agarwal ruled that the disputed property should be equally divided ( One third each) among the three parties. Justice DV Sharma has been categorical that the land belongs to Hindus and has rejected the claim of the Sunni Waqf Board.

However, the entire bench is of the view that the central dome of the disputed structure goes to Hindu Mahasabha, where the idols were installed in 1949 and again in 1992 after the demolition of the Babri Mosque. The sita rasoi and ram chabootara have been given to Nirmohi Akhara.

The bench has also directed maintenance of status quo for three months and invited suggestions from all the parties for demarcation of the land.

In view of the verdict, the nation has been put on high alert. Uttar Pradesh has turned into a fortress with thousands of paramilitary personnel patrolling the streets.

The intelligence network is on high alert throughout the state to monitor movement and activities of anti-social elements.
Aerial surveys of "sensitive places", including the Ram Janmbhoomi complex in Ayodhya has been done, police sources said.

All the security personnel deployed in Ayodhya and Faizabad have been equipped with tear gas shells and rubber bullets and the gazetted officers of various government departments have been asked to assist in policing. They have also been provided with rubber bullets and tear gas shells.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court paved the way for the Ayodhya verdict to be delivered by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court.

Continue reading...

India braced for violence ahead of Muslim v Hindu Ayodhya verdict

The ruling will bring a legal settlement to the property dispute which spans more than 60 years of Indian independence and caused riots throughout India in 1992 when extremists destroyed the site's 16th Century Babri Mosque to build a temple to the Hindu God Ram. More than 2,000 were killed in the violence which spread throughout India.

The government banned bulk text message sending to stop militant groups spreading false information and inciting violence amid fears the clashes could be repeated following today's (THURS) High Court decision ahead of the opening of the Commonwealth Games on Sunday. 
The country is already on alert for a potential terrorist attack on the Games in the capital and its security personnel will be stretched even further by the threat of riots.
The Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a former senior official on Tuesday to delay the verdict until after the Commonwealth Games.
Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, yesterday published a direct appeal in all popular newspapers, pleading with Hindus and Muslims to respect the court's verdict and challenge it through legal channels if they cannot accept it.
"It goes without saying that the judgment needs to be treated with the utmost respect. At the same time, we must remember the fact that the judgment, at this stage, is just one step in the judicial process. The determination of the issues need not necessarily end with this judgement unless it is accepted by all parties," he said.
"It is necessary for all sections of the people of India to maintain equanimity and tranquillity in the aftermath of the judgment. There should be no attempt by any section of the people to provoke any other section or to indulge in any expression of emotion that would hurt the feelings of other people."
Mr Singh pleaded for Indian tradition of respect for all religions be observed and warned that any could harm the country's rapid economic growth.
His appeal however heightened anxiety over the possibility of violence along with firm security measures. In Ayodya itself, in the heart of India's most populous state, police were issued with riot gear, including rubber bullets and tear gas, to quell any violence. Helicopters have been put on standby.
Twenty companies of the paramilitary Central Reserve Police Force have been drafted to protect the site itself, while 44 districts in the state have been declared as either sensitive or 'hypersensitive.'
The dispute focuses on who owns the site in Ayodhya - 83 miles from the state capital Lucknow - Muslims who have worshipped at the Babri Masjid since its construction in the 16th Century, or Hindus who believe it is the site of an ancient temple to their God, Ram. The property title has been held by the Sunni Central Waqf Board, which protects historic Muslim buildings and land.
In 1992, an estimated 150,000 Hindu fundamentalists, led by leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party, including L.K Advani, converged on the Babri Masjid site where many destroyed the mosque. In the riots which followed in Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad more than 2000 were killed. Ten years later, the dispute claimed fresh victims when Muslims attacked and killed 58 Hindu passengers on a train rumoured to be returning from Ayodhya. The massacre sparked riots throughout Gujarat ion which an estimated 1000 are believed to have died.
Leading commentator M.J Akbar, who reported the riots at the time, said he believed Indians had matured since 1992 and would not allow communal feelings threaten the country's growth.
"I think we're going to surprise everyone and shock ourselves by actually keeping the peace. This time around, after 18 years, we're going to show we can handle it through the Supreme Court. Not because we've become Gandhians but because people have realised violence is suicide. Whatever people want, it's not violence," he said.

Continue reading...

UP turns into a fortress ahead of Ayodhya verdict

Lucknow: A thick security blanket has been thrown in UP with paramilitary forces keeping an aerial vigil of sensitive places, including the disputed site in Ayodhya, even as the High Court, which would be pronouncing the verdict, has been declared a "no-access zone" restricting the entry to only those connected with the case listed today.
The intelligence network is on high alert throughout the state to monitor movement and activities of anti-social elements.

Continue reading...

Will HC succeed in settling Ayodhya dispute?

Lucknow: Will the Allahabad High Court succeed in settling the dispute over the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid, which has remained unresolved for decades?
This is the question on top of several minds as the nation awaits with bated breath the verdict in the six-decade- old legal dispute over the ownership of the land where the 1528-built Babri Masjid once stood.
The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justices D V Sharma, Sudhir Agarwal and S U Khan, is slated to pronounce the verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit at 3:30 PM.

Continue reading...

22 Uttar Pradesh areas under air surveillance

Lucknow: At least 22 places in Uttar Pradesh have been put under air surveillance with effect from Thursday morning, hours ahead of the much awaited Ayodhya verdict by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court.
'The sensitive areas have been divided into three air zones - to be controlled from Lucknow, Varanasi and Meerut, where the state government has posted its own helicopters to remain in readiness,' a top government official said.

Continue reading...

Heavy security in India amid appeals for peace

New Delhi: Tens of thousands of security personnel were posted across India ahead of the Ayodhya verdict on Thursday afternoon. From Kashmir to Kerala, many states were on "extra vigil" fearing trouble in the aftermath of the judgement.

"We are monitoring the situation minute-by-minute," an official in the home ministry said. "So far satisfactory. We hope the situation will remain peaceful after the judgment too."

Continue reading...

Maintain peace whatever the verdict: Sonia

NEW DELHI: Keeping in view the air of apprehension and looming uncertainty over Thursday's judgment on the status of the disputed Ayodhya site, Congress chief Sonia Gandhi made an appeal to people to maintain peace irrespective of the what is the verdict on the "sensitive" issue.

"In keeping with our great liberal tradition and strength of the social mosaic, accept with equanimity the judgment whichever way it goes," she said in an appeal to people. Recalling India's credo of unity in diversity and the rich Ganga-Yamuna culture, Sonia said people should once again repose their faith in the judiciary. "Let us promote peace, goodwill and amity by all means," she said.

The Congress chief added that the entire country had agreed to abide by the court's decision in keeping with the judiciary's objectivity and unbiased character. "While on the one hand this rich tradition of the judiciary is a matter of pride for us, at the same time it symbolises the humane and conscientious ideology of Indian society," she said.

Congress chief's remarks confirmed the perception in the political circles that the government is laying great store by the promise of all political parties and those who are parties to the dispute to abide by the verdict. Pointing out that the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court would deliver its judgment on a "sensitive" issue, Sonia said accepting it dispassionately would be a test for the maturity and liberal culture of the country.

Read more: Maintain peace whatever the verdict: Sonia - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Maintain-peace-whatever-the-verdict-Sonia/articleshow/6654613.cms#ixzz10wscufZv

Continue reading...

Ayodhya verdict on Thursday

Continue reading...

Ayodhya litigants welcome end of suspense

The cloud of uncertainty that hung over the Ayodhya verdict, to be delivered by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, has lifted. On the face of it, almost all parties to the dispute, the wary litigants battling it out in courts over six decades, are looking forward to the early delivery of the verdict, even if they are unsure of the outcome.

Zafaryab Jilani, counsel for the Sunni Wakf Board, and S. Shahbuddin, member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board's Committee on Babri Masjid, would not hazard a guess which way the verdict would swing. But they were one in categorically stating here on Tuesday that they would honour the verdict, whichever way it went, while reserving their constitutional right to appeal to the Supreme Court in the event of an adverse order.

They welcomed the end of uncertainty and the end of any further delay of a verdict that has been in the making for the last 61 years. Mr. Shahbuddin lamented: “All these years successive governments have failed to assert that irrespective of the outcome of the judicial process — after the final verdict comes from the Supreme Court — they would ensure its implementation. That has created all manner of doubts, although we have stated many times we will not flinch from facing the consequences of an adverse judgment.”

Mr. Jilani said he was awaiting the verdict with “neither hope nor despair but with a view to accepting what is delivered.” They will not celebrate the verdict if it is in their favour, nor would they greet it with sadness, if it is adverse, and above all, they express the hope that peace will prevail.

In stark contrast, there was an air of pessimism in the offices of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, where top leaders of the organisation were on Tuesday openly expressing fears about an adverse judicial verdict from the High Court. Giriraj Kishore and Pravin Togadia have made it clear that they cannot accept a verdict other than one that would favour and facilitate the building of a “grand Ram temple” on the disputed site. Mr. Togadia did add that the VHP — through the other ‘Hindu' litigants — would “indirectly participate in the constitutional and legal process” of appealing to the Supreme Court in the event of an adverse verdict, but “will not wait” to start a “movement on the ground in favour of building a Ram temple even if the High Court verdict was adverse.”

“From today you will not see us in Delhi. We will be going to different areas,” Mr. Togadia said, indicating that “without waiting for the final verdict from the Supreme Court,” the VHP led by the committee of ‘sants' (mentored by it), would start to mobilise people in favour of constructing a Ram temple. “We cannot countenance any other finality on this issue,” he said.

Six-decade legal battle

The verdict to be delivered on Thursday will mark the second important landmark in the legal battle that has spread over six decades — the first round went to the litigants claiming to represent the Hindu community when, by a judicial verdict, the locks of the Babri Masjid were opened in 1986 to allow regular ‘pooja' of the Ram Lalla deity installed there in the dead of night of December 22/23, 1949. Muslims were simultaneously forbidden to come anywhere near the disputed structure, some of the parties to the dispute pointed out. Then in 1992, despite a status quo order of the Supreme Court, the Masjid was demolished by thousands of ‘kar sevaks' led by the VHP, the BJP and their affiliates.

The Hindu Mahasabha, a party to the dispute, has announced a ‘havan' and a ‘yagnya' at 11 a.m. on September 30 — prayers for a verdict favouring the building of a temple.

Continue reading...

Allahabad HC verdict on Ayodhya on September 30

NEW DELHI/LUCKNOW: The Allahabad High Court will deliver its verdict in the 60-year-old Ramjanambhoomi- Babri Masjid title suit on Thursday after the Supreme Court today cleared the path by dismissing a petition for its deferment ending the uncertainty.

A three-judge Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court will pronounce the verdict in the Ayodhya case on September 30 at 3.30 PM, the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) Hari Shankar Dubey said in Lucknow, shortly after the Apex Court lifted its week-long interim stay given last Thursday.

The Supreme Court's three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice S H Kapadia gave a brief unanimous order dimissing the petition by a retired bureaucrat Ramesh Chandra Tripathi challenging the Lucknow Bench order rejecting his plea for postponing the keenly waited judgement to explore the possibility of mediation.

The bench also comprising Justices Aftab Alam and K S Radhakrishnan however did not give any reasons for its order giving the green signal for the high court verdict after two hours of arguments.

"Having considered in detail the arguments of the parties, we are of the view that the SLP has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the SLP stands dismissed," it said.

During arguments on the Special Leave Petition, the Bench questioned the plea for deferment of the verdict.

"You are running against time because you woke up late. That is after 50 years," Justice Aftab Alam said.

"The question is why you were quiet for all these days. You had to strike a chord when the matter was in the High Court," Justice Alam said.

The observations by the bench came when senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tripathi, was buttressing the argument that a settlement could be arrived at through negotiations.

Anwsering the bench for the delay in exploring an out-of-court settlement, Rohatgi said mediation was not a part of the statute.

Justice Alam said lawyers of all the contesting parties are at least in agreement on the issue of delivery of judgement by the Allahabad High Court.

The September 30 date fixed by the Lucknow Bench assumes importance since one of the judges of the three-member bench, Justice D V Sharma, is to demit office on October one. The other judges in the bench are Justice S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal.

Earlier, Attorney General G E Vahanvati, who was asked by the apex court to assist it in today's hearing, said that uncertainty should not be allowed to continue.

Continue reading...