Calls for ordinance to fast-forward Ram Temple construction grow louder – News 18

Justices Ranjan Gogoi, S.K. Kaul, and K.M. Joseph

News18The Supreme Court decided that the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute cases will not be taken up now, but in January, after just a four-minute hearing. “We have other priorities,” a bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said. – News 18

The demand for the Narendra Modi government to take the ordinance route to facilitate early construction of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya grew louder on Monday as several BJP leaders and Sangh outfits voiced their frustration with the judicial process “getting delayed”.

The demands were spurred by the Supreme Court deciding that the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute cases will not be taken up now, but in January, after just a four-minute hearing. “We have other priorities,” a bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said.

Union minister Giriraj Singh sounded an ominous warning, saying he feared the consequences if there was a further delay in building the temple.

Ab Hinduon ka sabr toot raha hai. Mujhe bhay hai ki Hinduon ka sabr tuta toh kya hoga (Hindus are losing patience now. I am afraid of what would follow),” the Minister of State for Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises said, adding that the court was not needed to solve the dispute.

BJP leader Vinay Katiyar alleged that the issue was being delayed “under pressure” from the Congress, which denied the charge. “People like Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan are pressing for delaying the issue. Till when will Ram bhakts (devotees) wait? In 2019, the Congress will come to know,” he said. His party colleague Sanjeev Baliyan said, “I am surprised at the priorities of the court. I am of the view that the Ram Temple should be constructed. The government should explore all possibilities.”

Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut said the Ram Temple was an issue of faith and demanded that the government come out with an ordinance soon. “It is a matter of faith. The court cannot decide on this. The government should bring an ordinance,” he said.

The pressure on the BJP to bring an ordinance has grown ever since RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat, in his annual Vijayadashmi address, asked the government to bring a law too.

The RSS, on Monday too, pressed for the construction of a Ram Temple, saying it would lead to an atmosphere of “goodwill and harmony” in the country. “The RSS is of the opinion that a Ram Temple should be constructed at the disputed site. The Supreme Court should immediately decide the case. If there are problems, the Centre should bring a legislation to remove the obstacles and hand over the Ram janamsthan bhoomi to the Shri Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas,” Arun Kumar, the Akhil Bharatiya Prachar Pramukh of the Sangh, said.

Senior Congress leader P. Chidambaram, however, said it was a familiar story every five years before the elections when the BJP tries to polarise the issue. “The Congress’s stated position is that the matter is before the Supreme Court and everyone should wait until the Supreme Court decides…. We should not jump the gun,” he told reporters.

To a question on possibility of an ordinance for construction of the temple, he said the ordinance has to be decided by the government and not by Parliament. “If someone asks for an ordinance, the Prime Minister has to respond to them, but as you know, he will not respond to any issue,” he said.

Another Congress leader Anand Sharma said, “Everyone should patiently wait for the Supreme Court verdict. Congress party has stated that it will welcome and accept the Supreme Court verdict.” He said religion is a matter of faith and linking this issue to the vote bank politics will be a disservice to the nation.

All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaddudin Owaisi dared the government to bring an ordinance, saying the BJP refers to the Ram Temple again and again. “If they have the courage, they should bring an ordinance on Ram Temple construction. They are trying to scare us about bringing an ordinance, why don’t they bring it,” he said.

Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) working president Alok Kumar said Hindus cannot wait eternally for a court judgment on the Ayodhya land dispute case and asked the government to bring a law for building a Ram temple. He urged the Narendra Modi government to bring a legislation in the Winter Session of Parliament.

“The Supreme Court has once again adjourned the hearing. This fortifies the VHP’s stand that the solution to the Ram Janambhoomi issue is not in eternally waiting for hearing of appeals pending for over seven years.

“We reiterate our request to the Union government to enact a law to clear the way for building a grand temple of Lord Ram at his birthplace in Ayodhya,” Kumar said.

On allegations by some BJP leaders that the delay was under pressure from some Congress leaders, Chidambaram said, “The Supreme Court will decide when to hear the case. We don’t decide when the court will hear the case.”

A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, said the appropriate bench will decide the future course of hearing in January next year on the appeals filed against the Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ayodhya land dispute case. “We will fix the date of hearing of the Ayodhya dispute case before the appropriate bench in January,” said the bench, which also comprised Justices S. K. Kaul and K. M. Joseph. – News 18, 30 October 2018

Shri Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas workshop in Ayodhya


9 Responses

  1. I like your comments; 1.My mother in law had filed a case in 2003 for her getting financial relief since she had lost her husband and also the only son! Considering her age, the high court had directed a judge to be examined at home; now, she is running 100 years! No judgement or even an interim relief!! Laws, rules and procedures are only means to an end, ie. happiness; Now, she is losing her awareness’s! Where is justice to her? Haven’t the courts become slaves of a system that take up ‘BIG & Sensational’ cases? 2. Without considering how the retirees, non pensioners from PSUs will suffer and offering some relief to them, the pay Commissions, headed by Judiciary go on revising the pays, pensions and perks of Government servants!! Don’t they become slaves of the system that they confine themselves to just what was referred to them!!


  2. “We have other priorities” even delay can be tolerated but “other priorities” unable to digest . court has priorities for deciding adultery, homosex, deepavali cracker time fixing, mid-night court for urban naxal, entertaining the cases in which the petitioner has no locus standi and giving ruling against the majority views & to decide whether the chapel with a back strap is sandal, adjoining severe criminal and corrupt cases for countless number of time as they wish, enormous delayed justice for the parties affected after their dimis or after crossing the retirement age.
    last 10 years of congress rule made a guinness record in corruption. Now only the left out organ judiciary also wanted to make some record and bring shame on to Bharat .

    Chandrababu Naidu instructed TTD Devasthanam to give jilobi as prasad instead of lladu – whoever knows this Tamil film comedy joke will understand the current functioning of our Judiciary & how worst to say “we have other priority”


  3. Babri Masjid was a victory monument built to intimidate the local people by the then Mogul governor of Awadh, Mir Baqi. Moving the building to another location would not do justice to the prejudiced assault on Hindus of the time. The building could only be torn down with fanfare and exaltation—even if the secularists do not think so.

    Anyway, Hindus are willing to build a grand new mosque for Muslims any place they wish outside of Ayodhya.

    Note that Mir Baqi, the builder of the mosque, was a Shia Muslim from Tashkent who became Emperor Babur’s commander of forces in Awadh. His mosque must therefore be considered a Shia mosque, not Sunni as claimed. It was an incomplete building without a washing tank or minarets, and therefore not a functioning mosque. Lastly, he did not name the building after Emperor Babur as believed, but after his favourite Afghan dancing boy, Babri.

    The fact that Hindus have not been able to get title to this most sacred janmabhoomi for the last 133 years (if not longer), shows an extraordinary deficit of Hindu leadership and a deeply ingrained prejudice within the country’s governing institutions.


  4. I fully agree!!


  5. I have given numerous comments on such issues; none of them seem to have entered the ears of the ‘POWERS’! When the Aswan Dam in Egypt was constructed, several pyramids were feared to get submerged in the Lake; a wise decision was taken to cut the pyramids in to pieces, transport them to safe places and reconstruct the pyramids; a similar action could have been taken with respect to the Babar Masjid thus avoiding the Hindu Muslim entangle; neither the political nor the official nor the Judicial institutions of our country is vibrant, no adamant to reject novel ideas to solve the problems in unique ways!!


  6. Continuously postponing hearing and decision for an undue long, long time on this important national case is bound to raise serious questions on the judiciary process, and that is the most uncalled for situation for a truly democratic functioning of the Indian Republic.


  7. Ram images placed in the Babri Masjid in 1949.
    SC Adjourns Ayodhya Dispute Hearing Till January: The Legal Wrangle, Explained – Prakhar Gupta – Swarajya Magazine – Oct 29, 2018

    A three-member bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K M Joseph has adjourned the hearing of the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute case to January 2019.

    “We have our own priorities … whether hearing would take place in January, March or April would be decided by an appropriate Bench,” the CJI said, ignoring the Uttar Pradesh government’s request of early hearing.

    The court posted the Ayodhya title suit appeals in January before an appropriate bench to fix a date for hearing the case. This development came nearly eight years after the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court pronounced in a majority judgement the three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres at the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri masjid site―one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for ‘Ram Lalla’.

    Here’s a peek into the complex legal history of the case:

    1885: The first case related to the dispute was filed in January 1885 in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Faizabad, by Mahant Raghubir Das, regarded as the mascot of the temple movement. The case was filed against Lord Wodehouse, who was serving as the Secretary of State for India (responsible for the governance of British India) at that time. The mahant had requested permission to build a temple on the chabutara (a raised platform) outside the Babri Masjid. His plea was rejected.

    1949-50: In a state of suspended animation since 1885, the dispute made headlines when an idol of Lord Ram appeared exactly at the proclaimed birthplace on the intervening night of 22 and 23 December 1949. This was followed by the pouring in of Hindu devotees and protests by Muslims. To keep the situation under control, the local administration declared the area as disputed and locked the gates.

    This lead to Gopal Singh Visharad filing a case in the Faizabad civil court on 16 January 1950, seeking exclusive rights for performing puja and a permanent injunction prohibiting removal of the idol from the janmasthan. The court issued a temporary injunction and the order was later confirmed by a division bench of the Allahabad High Court. On 24 April 1950, the State of Uttar Pradesh, which had a Congress government led by Govind Ballabh Pant, appealed against the injunction order.

    On 5 December 1950, Paramhans Ramchandra Das, head of the Ramjanmabhoomi Nyas (Rama Birthplace Temple Trust), an organisation linked to the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP), filed a cases seeking continuation of puja. However, he withdrew (dismissed as withdrawn) the case.

    1959-61: On 17 December 1959, Nirmohi Akhara, one of the 14 akharas recognised by the Akhil Bharatiya Akhara Parishad, filed a case seeking possession of the site, claiming to be the custodian of the janmabhoomi and demanding the transfer of charge of the disputed site from the receiver.

    On 18 December 1961, the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Board of Wakfs enters the fray along with nine Muslim residents of Ayodhya just days ahead of the expiry of the 12-year limitation period after which it would have lost claim to the site. It claimed the mosque and the adjoining land, and demanded the removal of the idols.

    1986: On 1 February 1986, the district judge directed that the gates of the structure be unlocked for Hindu worshippers. The same year, Muslims set up Babri Masjid Action Committee to protest against the decision.

    1989: Former VHP vice-president and a retired judge of the Allahabad High Court, Deoki Nandan Agarwala, filed a case on 1 July 1989 at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court in the name of Bhagwan Ram Lalla Virajman (Ram lalla). Making a reference to the 1928 edition of the Gazette of H R Nevill, the District Gazetteer of Faizabad, he claimed that Babur had destroyed the temple in 1528 and built a mosque in its place. On 14 August 1989, Allahabad High Court ordered maintenance of status quo at the site. The same year, Congress government at the Centre, led by Rajiv Gandhi, allowed the VHP to perform shilanyas ceremony, in which the first stone of the proposed Ram temple was put in place.

    All the four suits were clubbed together and brought before the Allahabad High Court in 1989 on an application by the then Advocate General of UP.

    1992: The structure at the disputed site was demolished on 6 December 1992. On 16 December that year, Justice Liberhan Commission was set up to inquire into the demolition of disputed structure and give a report within three months. President’s rule is imposed and Kalyan Singh’s Bharatiya Janata Party-led government was dismissed. Three other BJP-led governments were dismissed soon after.

    1993: Congress government at the Centre, led by P V Narasimha Rao, passed ‘Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act’ on 3 April 1993 to acquire all the disputed areas (67.7 acres) under suits pending in the Allahabad High Court. Ismail Faruqui and various others filed petitions challenging the validity of the Act.

    1994: The Supreme Court, on the question of acquisition of religious place by the government, decided that a mosque was not an “essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and that namaz could be offered anywhere, “even in open”, and hence, “its acquisition (by the state) is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India”. The government was allowed to include the 2.77 acres (on which the disputed structure once stood) in the 67.7 acres of land to be acquired under the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993.

    1996: Allahabad High Court started recording oral evidence in July 1996.

    2002-05: Three High Court judges began hearing the case in April 2002 to determine who the site belongs to and directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) to excavate it to find if a temple existed in the area as claimed by the Hindus. The ASI begins work in June 2003 and found the claim to be true. The findings were rejected by the Muslim parties. In the same month, the Central Bureau of Investigation files a chargesheet against the then deputy prime minister, L K Advani, and seven others. In August 2003, court orders seven other leaders to stand trial while Advani does not face any charges being the country’s deputy prime minister.

    In March 2003, the Supreme Court disallows all religious activity at the acquired land and states that the interim order should be operative till disposal of the suits pending in Allahabad High Court to maintain communal harmony.

    In 2004, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance came to power. Soon after, a court ruled that the order exonerating Advani should be reviewed.

    2009: The Liberhan commission, which had been set up to probe the sequence of events leading up to the demolition of the disputed structure, submitted its report to prime minister Manmohan Singh after being granted 48 extensions.

    2010: The Allahabad High Court, in its judgement on 30 September 2010, divided the disputed land into three parts ― one-third for the Sunni Waqf Board, one-third for the Nirmohi Akhara and one-third to the party for ‘Ram Lalla’.

    In December 2010, the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and the Sunni Waqf Board challenged the High Court’s decision in the apex court.

    2011: Supreme Court, in May 2011, stayed the High Court order to divide the land equally in three parts, stating that the status quo be maintained.

    2016: Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament Subramanian Swamy files plea in the Supreme Court on 26 February 2016 seeking construction of Ram Temple at the disputed site.

    2017: On 21 March 2017, an out-of-court settlement was suggested by the then chief justice of India, J S Khehar. A three-judge bench was constituted by the Supreme Court on 7 August to hear pleas challenging the 1994 Ismail Faruqui verdict of the Allahabad High Court. The next day, UP Shia Central Waqf Board tells the apex court that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a distance from the site.

    On 11 September, Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court was directed by the Supreme Court to nominate two additional district judges as observers to deal with the upkeep of the disputed site within 10 days. On 1 December, 32 “civil rights activists” enter the fray with pleas challenging the 2010 verdict of the High Court.

    2018: The Supreme Court started hearing civil appeals in February 2018. In March, it rejected all interim pleas, including Swamy’s, seeking to intervene. In April, a plea was filed by advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was representing some of the Muslim bodies, to refer the issue of reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement to a larger bench. On 6 July, the UP government claimed that the other side wanted to delay the decision by seeking reconsideration to a larger bench.

    In September 2018, the Supreme Court declined to refer the case to a five-judge Constitution bench. It announced that the case will be heard by a newly constituted three-judge bench on 29 October. A new bench, comprising CJI Gogoi and two other judges, justices Kaul and Joseph, has been constituted to hear pleas in the Ayodhya title suit.

    > Prakhar Gupta is a senior sub-editor at Swarajya. Follow him @prakhar4991.


  8. “To a question on possibility of an ordinance for construction of the temple, (Chidambaram) said the ordinance has to be decided by the government and not by Parliament. ‘If someone asks for an ordinance, the Prime Minister has to respond to them, but as you know, he will not respond to any issue,’ he said.”

    Chidambaram is right. Modi will not respond. As for every other Hindu outfit, they are just blowing hot air as usual.

    What is really unfortunate is that the Supreme Court has become politicised—just like every other institution in the country.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: