As the Supreme Court and the religious bodies have expressed that the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid dispute of Ayodhya must be merely treated as land dispute in the court, the hearing of petitions on the case were conducted on Friday when both parties expressed their views and arguments peacefully. The next hearing will be made on May 15 as the apex court believes that this is a huge case and needs a larger bench of justices.
The case that dates back to 1992 regarding the disputed land of Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid in Ayodhya of Uttar Pradesh, has finally reached the judgement stage and is being heard in the topmost court of India. A three-justice bench of Supreme Court headed by CJI Dipak Misra and accompanied by Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer initiated the final hearing session on Friday (April 27). The appearing parties included Hindu and Muslim community representatives – senior advocate Raju Ramachandran appearing for Muslim parties and senior advocate Harish Salve and former attorney general K Parasaran were present for Hindu parties.
The hearing was conducted on Friday in presence of the three-justice bench and both parties presented their argument peacefully. Justice Ramachandran argued for the Muslim side plead that the entire Ayodhya case must be looked into by a five-justice bench of Supreme Court, keeping the sensitivity of the case in mind. While Justice Savle said that the decision of the case must be done by “constitutionality and not sentiments.” The plea was accepted by the Supreme Court bench and the next hearing will be made on May 15 in presence of five justices of the apex court.
Salve, on behalf of the Hindu community, has mentioned that religious sensitivities and politics should not be brought up before the court and the Ayodhya case must be made constitutionality. So far, 14 appeals were filed against the 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict which had treated the dispute like a title suit, distributing the disputed land in Ayodhya equally among the three plaintiffs. The outcome of this case has a vital bearing on the social fabric of the country because two major communities are involved and make indisputable**