New Delhi:
Protests broke out outside the Supreme Court on Thursday following the adjournment of hearing in the politically sensitive Ayodhya land dispute case. Members of right-wing groups held posters and shouted slogans to express their anger against the repeated adjournment of the hearing by the top court. The police have detained the protesters, which also included women.
Earlier in the day, the top court deferred the hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case in Ayodhya till January 29 after All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) lawyer Rajeev Dhavan objected to Justice UU Lalit’s inclusion in the Constitution Bench.
After advocate Dhavan’s objection, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that he leaves it to Justice Lalit if he wants to rescue himself from the hearing. Following this, Justice Lalit recused himself from the five-judge constitution bench set up to hear the matter.
Also Read | Ayodhya land dispute: Hearing adjourned till January 29 after Justice UU Lalit recuses himself from case
Now, a new bench would be constituted by CJI Gogoi that would hear the case on January 29. Besides CJI, the other four justices of the Constitution Bench were in line to be the Chief Justice in the future. When justice Gogoi’s term ends, his successor would be Justice Bobde followed by Justices Ramana, Lalit and Chandrachud.
As many as 14 petitions are pending against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment that ordered equal distribution of the 2.77-acre land among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
With Lok Sabha elections approaching the nation, various Hindutva organisations, including the RSS, are demanding the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government to bring an ordinance for the early construction of a grand temple of Lord Ram at Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya.
Also Read | After PM Modi's comment, RSS says government will build Ram Temple within its tenure
However, PM Modi had recently rejected the idea of bringing an Ordinance before the judicial process is over. Modi had said that an Ordinance can be brought only after the hearing in the Supreme Court concludes.
