The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, the court's decision on Namaz, soon cleared the way for hearing in the Supreme Court.
The path of hearing soon became clear in the Supreme Court of the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid dispute, which has been hanging for decades. The Supreme Court will now start hearing the case from October 29. In a significant decision today, the Supreme Court said that reading prayers in the mosque is an integral part of Islam or not, there is no need to send this question to the larger bench.
Ayodhya case has been hanging for the last eight years in the Supreme Court. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had said that the disputed land in Ayodhya should be divided into three parts. Part of it should be given to Ram Lala, to a Hindu side and third party to the Muslim side. This decision, which came with the ownership of the land, was challenged in the Supreme Court. But the hearing has been hanging and straying.
During this hearing, the question of the verdict of the five judges of the Supreme Court given in 1994 was raised in which the instructions were given to maintain the status quo on the Ram Janmabhoomi so that Hindu worship can be recited. The bench also said that reading Namaz in the mosque is not an integral part of Islam. Today the Supreme Court said in the majority verdict that the Supreme Court had commented on land acquisition in 1994. The government can take over the land on which the mosque is located. Namaz can be read somewhere, the mosque is not necessary for it. This decision of 1994 will not be assigned to the big benches. The Supreme Court today pronounced this verdict two-one. Now Ayodhya land dispute hearing will begin on October 29. If there was a case for the big bench, then the Ayodhya dispute hearing was delayed.
However, there is no opinion on this decision in the Supreme Court. The third judge, Justice S Abdul Nazir, disagreed with both the judges. He said that the decision of 1994 is in the circle of questions. These remarks were made without detailed examination. The impact also took place on the Allahabad High Court verdict. Therefore, the matter should be referred to the constitution bench.
But now this matter will not go into the constitution bench. Obviously there are many political aspects of this decision too. This decision, which came right before the next Lok Sabha elections, is being viewed as a major relief for the BJP. It is believed that this can benefit the BJP, many of the big leaders have said many times that Ram temple should be built in Ayodhya. However, the party has been saying about the Supreme Court's decision to wait for this decision. On the other hand, the rest of the parties say the same thing but they also question the Center and the BJP's government's intention of UP.
Reactions to today's decision have started and even started. UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has said that the Ayodhya issue is as good as the quickest solution. He said that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that has happened today is very important in this matter. In 1994 also the Honorable Supreme Court had interpreted this type and I think that there is an alleged dispute related to Shri Ram Janmabhoomi as soon as its As soon as the solution is settled, it is necessary for the sake of cordiality and prosperity and the majority of the people of the country also want an urgent solution to this issue
Yogi Adityanath alleges that there are many people who do not want to solve this issue. They are not only stopping the balloons but also trying to spoil the atmosphere. "Our appeal will be as quick as possible. Those who want to create a controversy and newsense in the country knowingly, they are trying to stoop somewhere." The order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of today is very important and we Welcome and believe that very soon we will take the decision by completing the hearing. "
On the other hand, the RSS also welcomed the decision of today. In a statement, the Sangh said in a statement that today the Supreme Court has decided to hear the trial of Shri Ram Janmabhoomi by a three-member bench on October 29, we welcome it and believe that it will be the fair decision of the trial very soon.
While the Congress said that BJP has been fooling the country for the past 30 years on this issue. In the case, the parties lobbying for the Babri Masjid have expressed disappointment.
Union Minister Uma Bharti is under litigation in the Ayodhya dispute. He has also put his words on today's decision. Although he said that the Ram Janmabhoomi is sacred to Hindus, but not for Muslims, for which Mecca is sacred. Uma Bharti expressed hope that the construction of the Ram temple will be started soon. But senior Congress leader and lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi has expressed surprise at the uproar over the decision of today's decision. He said that so much excitement is beyond understanding.
Now everybody's eyes will be tuned to the Supreme Court that there is a verdict in the matter of early hearing, or once again a legal screw will get entangled in this case. The question is whether the Supreme Court can give a decision about the ownership of the land disputed before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections? If this happens then it will become a big issue in the Lok Sabha elections.
Here it is necessary to tell how senior lawyers demanded the hearing of this case after the next Lok Sabha election. In December last year, Chief Justice Deepak Mishra was also upset with the case. Kapil Sibal, Dushyant Dave and Rajiv Dhawan, appearing in the court on behalf of different Muslim petitioners, had said that the trial of this case should be postponed. Kapil Sibal had said that BJP is saying that the Ram temple will be built before 2019 through legal route. They want to include it in the electoral manifesto. The court should not be caught in this trap. In this case there are more than 90 thousand documents which need time for study.
These lawyers also threatened to get out of court in anger. After this, Chief Justice Deepak Mishra looted. He said that the court does not agree with such behavior of the lawyers. He had said that speaking in a loud voice would not be tolerated. Talk about legal issues. A high voice exposes your inability to senior lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment