SC Judge UU Lalit recuses himself from Ayodhya case; Protests erupt outside SC

Disheartened with court's order of hearing the case on January 29, several pro-Ram Temple protesters raised slogans outside the Supreme Court, which were detained by the police and taken to the police station.

New Delhi: Members of various Hindu groups stage a protest in support of Ram Temple, near Supreme Court in New Delhi, Thursday, Jan. 10, 2019. A five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, today adjourned the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land title dispute matter till January 29. (PTI Photo/ Arun Sharma)(PTI1_10_2019_000012B)

New Delhi: The hearing in the Ayodhya Land dispute case was further deferred to January 29 after Justice UU Lalit, who was a part of the 5-Judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, recused himself from hearing the case after being questioned by lawyer Rajeev Dhawan.   The decision was taken by the apex court after senior counsel Rajeev Dhawan, appearing for one of the Muslim parties, told the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi that Justice Lalit in 1997 appeared for former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh in one of the matters related to the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. Singh is currently the Rajasthan Governor. Though Dhavan said he was not seeking Justice Lalit's recusal, the judge opted out of the hearing in the matter. The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana and D Y Chandrachud, noted the submissions made by Dhavan. As the much awaited hearing began in the apex court on Thursday, lawyer Rajeev Dhawan first raised questions on the change of the size of constitution bench, which was earlier a 3-judge bench; was later increased to a 5-judge bench. Speaking at the court, Dhawan said “Court had earlier ordered a hearing by 3-judge bench, which has been changed with administrative order. You should pass a judicial order". 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. The CJI said 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. 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. The court said the statements of the witnesses have been recorded in more than 15,000 pages. The High Court’s verdict is recorded in 4304 printed pages; also in total, documents related to the case are over 8,000 in number; out of which documents of 7 languages have been translated so far. “Registry should analyse all the documents and present a report on January 29” . If required, the apex court registry can take the service of official translators, the bench said.

जज साहब, 100 करोड़ हिंदुओं का धैर्य अगर टूट गया तो कोई माय लार्ड भी नही रोक सकेगा श्री राम मंदिर निर्माण से ।#AyodhyaHearing

— Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga (@TajinderBagga) January 10, 2019

Let SC take a 100 years to decide theTitle. SC cannot give Sunni WKf Board their ordinary property since it will affect my fundamental right to pray hence an ordinary right cannot overrule a fundamental right

— Subramanian Swamy (@Swamy39) January 10, 2019

On September 27 last year, a three-judge bench of the top court by 2:1 majority refused to refer to a five-judge Constitution bench reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter arose during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute. Speaking on the same, Mahant Paramhans Das said that “Court should reconsider their decision hold a hearing in the case in a day or two” He further added “If court doesn’t do so, we would be obligated to take law in our own hands and march along with all other sadhus from Kumbh”. Now, a new 5-judge bench; sans Justice UU Lalit will fix the date of hearing on January 29. Protests outside Supreme Court: Disheartened with court's order of hearing the case on January 29, several pro-Ram Temple protesters raised slogans outside the Supreme Court. They were detained and taken to the nearest police station. There was an air of despondency among  several Ram bhakts in Ayodhya and Prayagraj (earlier Allahabad) who described how the delay in the court proceedings have made them run out patience. They have demanded the government to bring an ordinance and believe it's the only option left for an early construction of Ram temple. (With agency inputs)