SC to hear Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case on December 5

Ayodhya

The Supreme Court, that today began hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute, granted time till December 5 to translate the historic documents related to the case.

The Bench said other documents in the form of 533 exhibits cited in the High Court's verdict will have to be translated by the parties which choose to rely on them.

MC Dhingra, the lawyer appearing for Shia Waqf Board in the Ayodhya case, while speaking to ANI on the same, said that the Shia Board has made a decision to leave the one-third land allotted to them, to avoid problems for both the religious denominations, in regard to their prayers.

On August 8, the Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh on told the Supreme Court that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a reasonable distance from the disputed site in Ayodhya.

During the 100-minute long hearing, the Muslim litigant argued against early hearing in the case holding the translation of documents from Persian and Urdu as important for the hearing to progress.

In 1992 a large "group" of Hindus demolished the 16th century Babri Mosque in the UP city of Ayodhya after a political rally at the site turned violent.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, C S Vaidynathan and others, representing the other side including Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara, submitted the court should not be wasting any more time and start considering the matter.

Their stand was strongly opposed by the counsel for Lord Ram Lalla and the UP government which said that nearly seven years have passed since the judgement of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court and the contesting parties should have completed the translation work earlier.

The Sunni Waqf Board told the apex court that the translation of the texts is not yet complete.

The 30-page affidavit assumes significance as it has been filed within few days of the apex court agreeing to fast track the hearing on a batch of appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court verdict on the land dispute in the case. "We can't wait for translations", the bench said. The Centre sought a "larger debate" on Article 35A, as advocate general K K Venugopal suggested in court, and the matter is with a three-judge bench with possible disposal by September first week.

This prompted the bench to ask the parties, "What were they doing in the past seven years when the appeal against the 2010 Allahabad High Court was not listed here?"

Related:

Comments


Other news