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.
|Published (Last):||18 September 2007|
|PDF File Size:||16.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.94 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Live Updates: Supreme Court Refuses To Refer Ayodhya-Linked Case To 5-Judge Bench
Ayodhya case hearing witnesses spat between lawyers in SC. Supreme Court judge Justice Ashok Bhushan has begun reading out judgment. What is judgment.
One of these temples was swept away by the Sarayu riverthe fate of another Harismiriti tmeple is unknown, but the other three were replaced by mosques, including the temple at the Janmabhoomi, according to Bakker.
Archived from the original on 1 October Mosque not essential part of religion made in a specific context of acquiring. The Supreme Court will decide whether to revisit the issue of whether namaz or prayers can be offered anywhere – or whether a mosque is an essential part of the practice of Islam and is needed for congregation and to pray.
He had said that dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for ‘almost a century’. Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid case. It was argued by the Muslim groups before a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer that the “sweeping” observation of the apex court in the verdict needed to be reconsidered by a five-judge bench as “it had and will have a bearing” on the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute case.
Ayodhya dispute – Wikipedia
The Allahabad High Court pronounces its verdict on four title suits relating to the Ayodhya dispute on 30 September The mosque was attacked with a number of improvised tools, and brought to the ground in a few hours.
A place of particular significance for practising religion has a different place in law, the bench has observed. It would have been better if this issue was referred to Constitutional judgemen. Lala Sita Ram of Ayodhya, who had access to the older edition inwrote, “The faqirs answered that they would bless him if he promised to build a mosque after demolishing the Janmasthan temple.
Ghaffar, Maulvi Abdul [first published prior to ]. We appeal that this matter be resolved as soon as possible: M Siddiq, who was one of the original litigants in the case, had criticised certain findings of the verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.
Jdugement, Dharam Veer 30 August In the landmark hearing, the three judges of The Allahabad High Court ruled that the 2. Here ayodbya met the Sufi saints Shah Jalal and Sayyid Musa Ashiqan and took a pledge in return for their blessings for conquering Hindustan. When asked as to what other legal recourse the petitioners will have once the judgment is out, Swamy said that they can try what is called review petition and curative petition but that won’t help as the same judges will have to sit again and decide.
During its judgement, the aoydhya court said that religous practices such as offering of prayer at mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam. Justice Ashok Bhushan, who read out the judgement for himself and the CJI, said it has to find out the context in which the five-judge had delivered the judgement.
Supreme Court Ayodhya verdict: SC refuses to refer Ayodhya land dispute case to a larger bench
In RaghuvamsaRama’s son Kusa revived it. He had also said that the issue of the observation was neither taken up by any litigant sincenor in the present appeals which were filed in after the high court’s verdict. I am satisfied that this impediment has been defeated. The Supreme Court had laid down a law in its judgment in Ismail Faruqui v.
They built several Vishnu temples in Ayodhya, five of which survived till Aurangzeb’s reign. He also found a letter from a gumastha Trilokchand, datedstating that, while under the Muslim administration people had been prevented from taking a ritual bath in the Saryu river, the establishment of the Jaisinghpura has removed all impediments.
Allahabad High Court judgment. It is not about arithmetic, but of convincing everybody that the Supreme Court should have spoken in one voice: State government acquired 2. Justice Abdul Nazeer dissents.
Singh 16 January Switch to Hindi Edition. Get instant notifications from Economic Times Allow Not now. There were sporadic clashes in the judgemetn such as Bhagalpur in Bihar.