Ayodhya case Here's what happened today:
1:30 pm - Sangh affiliate VHP wants ordinance on Ram Temple in winter session, says, "the Supreme court has again postponed the hearing. Our strong belief now says it is not appropriate to wait till the final stage of the verdict."
12: 28 pm: Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Keshav Prasad Maurya, said "I don't want to comment since it's the decision of Supreme Court. However, the adjournment of hearing doesn't send a good message.'
12:00 pm: The Honorable Supreme Court has decided to fix the matter in the month of January, when this matter is listed then the date of hearing will be fixed from time to time. There may be a composition new bench or the same bench may also continue, said a lawyer present at the hearing.
11:57 am -
11:05 am: Patience of Hindus is running out. I fear what will be the consequence if they lose their patience: Union Minister Giriraj Singh on #AyodhyaRamMandir issue. On October 22, Singh had said, "The majority of Muslims are in favour of a Ram temple. I appeal to those who are creating hurdles to come forward. If they don’t, they would create hatred in the minds of Hindus for them. What will happen if that hatred turned into volcanoes?”
10: 52 am: Union minister Subramanian Swamy said, "I think we should take a review in December to see if Ram Temple matter is going to be quickly adjourned or again Congress lawyers will find some other interlocutory application to delay the matter. If it's going to be delayed then we'll have to take a call."
10: 47 am: In the last hearing on September 29, the top court had made it clear that the questionable observations made in the Ismail Faruqui’s cases were made in the context of the land acquisition and this time those observations were not relevant for deciding the suits or appeals.
10: 45 am: There are some crucial decisions that the CJI may take today. While one will be deciding on a date to commence hearing the title dispute, the CJI also needs to decide whether he will head the bench after Dipak Misra's retirement.
10: 43 am: Earlier, the Congress party on Thursday had said that the party has always maintained that all sides should accept a Supreme Court verdict in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid issue and the government should take all steps to implement it.
10: 40 am: Meanwhile Kerala CM in Palakkad said, "Supreme Court will soon hear the Babri Masjid case. What did you (Amit Shah) say? You want SC to give a verdict in your favour. How can you take such a stand, is this the way a political leader should speak?"
10: 38 am: Ahead of hearing on the Ayodhya land dispute case Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister Mohsin Raza, Muslim cleric Maulana Sufiyan and Zafaryab Jilani of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) have expressed faith in the top court and said that they will abide by its order.
10: 34 am: Some radical clerics and politics of the Congress have kept the case of Ram Mandir in court. The God who decides the fate of human beings in the world, that God is waiting for the human court verdict for the judgment of his house: Waseem Rizvi
10: 30 am: Watch Video-
10: 27 am: The issue whether a mosque is integral to Islam had cropped up when the three-judge bench was hearing the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court's verdict. In a 2:1 majority ruling the three-judge high court bench had ordered that the 2.77 acres of land be partitioned equally among three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
10: 19 am: On September 27, the apex court had declined to refer to a five-judge constitution bench the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgment that a mosque was not integral to Islam which had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute.
10: 13 am: Today, the Supreme Court bench will hear the petitions challenging Allahabad High Court's 2010 verdict to divide the land into 3 portions among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
10: 00 am: Ahead of Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute hearing in Supreme Court, RSS leader Indresh Kumar said that the Ram Janamsthaan cannot be changed
The top court bench of then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer by a majority of 2:1 while rejecting the plea challenging the High Court judgment had directed that the matter would be heard by a three-judge bench from October 29, i.e., today. In a majority verdict, the three-judge bench had said that the civil suit has to be decided on the basis of evidence and the previous verdict has no relevance to this issue.
Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case timeline: Here is the chronology of events
1528: Babri Masjid built by Mir Baqi, commander of Mughal emperor Babur.
1885: Mahant Raghubir Das files plea in Faizabad district court seeking permission to build a canopy outside the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure. Court rejects plea.
1949: Idols of Ram Lalla placed under a central dome outside the disputed structure.
1950: Gopal Simla Visharad files suit in Faizabad district court for rights to worship the idols of Ram Lalla.
1950: Paramahansa Ramachandra Das files suit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols.
1959: Nirmohi Akhara files suit seeking possession of the site.
1981: UP Sunni Central Waqf Board files suit for possession of the site.
Feb 1, 1986: Local court orders the government to open the site for Hindu worshippers.
Aug 14, 1989: Allahabad HC ordered maintenance of status quo in respect of the disputed structure.
Dec 6, 1992: Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid structure demolished.
Apr 3, 1993: ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ passed for acquisition of land by Centre in the disputed area.
1993: Various writ petitions, including one by Ismail Faruqui, filed at Allahabad HC challenging various aspects of the Act.
Oct 24, 1994: SC says in the historic Ismail Faruqui case that a mosque was not integral to Islam.
Apr, 2002: HC begins hearing on determining who owns the disputed site.
Mar 13, 2003: SC says, in the Aslam alias Bhure case, no religious activity of any nature be allowed at the acquired land.
Mar 14: SC says interim order passed should be operative till disposal of the civil suits in Allahabad HC to maintain communal harmony.
Sep 30, 2010: HC, in a 2:1 majority, rules three-way division of disputed area between Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
May 9, 2011: SC stays HC verdict on Ayodhya land dispute.
Feb 26, 2016: Subramanian Swamy files plea in SC seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.
Mar 21, 2017: CJI JS Khehar suggests out-of-court settlement among rival parties.
Aug 7: SC constitutes three-judge bench to hear pleas challenging the 1994 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
Aug 8: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site.
Sep 11: SC directs Chief Justice of the Allahabad HC to nominate two additional district judges within ten days as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site.
Nov 20: UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells SC temple can be built in Ayodhya and mosque in Lucknow.
Dec 1: Thirty-two civil rights activists file plea challenging the 2010 verdict of the Allahabad HC.
Feb 8, 2018: SC starts hearing the civil appeals.
Mar 14: SC rejects all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene as parties in the case.
Apr 6: Rajeev Dhavan files plea in SC to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench.
Jul 6: UP government tells SC some Muslim groups were trying to delay the hearing by seeking reconsideration of an observation in the 1994 verdict.
Jul 20: SC reserves verdict.
Sep 27: SC declines to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. Case to be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on October 29.