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.

Author: Gasho Nell
Country: South Africa
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Photos
Published (Last): 28 July 2018
Pages: 136
PDF File Size: 3.82 Mb
ePub File Size: 4.76 Mb
ISBN: 915-7-81654-852-1
Downloads: 45501
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Fauzragore

Retrieved 20 June In December last year, lawyer and Congress politician Kapil Sibal had asked the court to defer hearing of the title case till completion of the Lok Sabha elections.

The Case Against the Temple. An Uttar Pradesh court ruled that an earlier order which exonerated LK Advani for his role in the destruction of the mosque should be reviewed. What is the arguement?

Ayodhya Ram Mandir- Babri Masjid Verdict: Know in four points what today’s ruling means

Ghaffar, Maulvi Abdul [first published prior to ]. After the Guptas, the capital of North India moved to Kannauj and Ayodhya fell into relative neglect.

In RaghuvamsaRama’s son Kusa revived it.

The government locked the gates, saying the matter was sub judice and declared the area disputed. Prouncement of judgment begins. Archaeological excavations by the Archaeological Survey of India ASI inand in and around the disputed site have found evidence indicating that a large Hindu agodhya existed on the site.

Sep 27, 5: To put it simply, if the top court agrees to reconsider the Ismail Faruqui judgment by a larger seven judge bench then that aykdhya judge bench will have to decide whether mosque constitutes an essential part of Islam or not.


In the RamayanaAyodhya is the judgdment of the god-king Ramathe son of Dasharathathe ruler of Ayodhya, and his queen Kausalya. Ghaghara Gomti Choti Saryu.

Centre for Policy Studies. That Statement is in context of the issue whether juddgement has immunity from acquisition,” Justice Bhushan has observed. They built several Vishnu temples in Ayodhya, five of which survived till Aurangzeb’s reign. Allahabad High Court judgment. Earlier, Hindu groups had opposed the plea of their Muslim counterparts that the verdict holding that a mosque was not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam be referred to a larger bench.

Ayodhya holy site crisis”.

On 16 Decemberthe Liberhan Commission was set up by the Government of India to probe the circumstances that led to the demolition of the Babri Mosque. In a majority verdict of 2: This SC has refused to refer the ruling to a larger bench. This activity was stopped after intervention of the prime minister. The Times of India.

According to the Garuda Puranaa Hindu religious text, Ayodhya is one of seven sacred sites where Mokshaor a ayodha release from the cycle of death and rebirth, may be obtained.

In the s, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad VHPbelonging to the mainstream Hindu nationalist family Sangh Parivarlaunched a new movement to “reclaim” the site for Hindus and to erect a temple dedicated to the infant Rama Ramlala at this spot.

Ayodhya dispute

Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid case. When the matter reached Supreme Court, the Jdugement litigants demanded that the case should be heard by a larger bench of seven judges as it relates a land belonging to a mosque and thus has implications on the freedom of religion, a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. The court also ruled that the status quo should be maintained for three months. Should this question be referred to a Bench of five judges?


Supreme Veddict of India stayed the High Court order splitting the disputed site in three parts and said that status quo will remain.

Congress threatened Supreme Court judges, who tried to hear Ayodhya cases, vwrdict impeachment: Thus, Ayodhya land dispute will be heard by a 3-Judge bench. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for legal representative of Siddiq, had said that the observation that mosques were not essential for practising Islam were made by the apex court without any enquiry or considering the religious texts.

Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the UP government, had said this dispute has been awaiting final adjudication for “almost a century”. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing Muslim appellants, had argued that the observation in the Ismail Farooqui judgment has affected the status of mosques in Islam. The ruling will not be referred to a larger bench, the three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said.

The bench said, ‘First, we should put this controversy on verdict to rest. Archived from the original on 1 October The Supreme Court by 2: Vsrdict Court will deliver two separate opinions.