<p style="text-align: justify;">The hearing in the case relating to the Ayodhya/Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir case is currently underway at the Supreme Court of India.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">The case is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India <strong>Ranjan Gogoi</strong> and Justices <strong>SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan</strong> and <strong>Abdul Nazeer</strong>.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">The Ayodhya case was <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/ram-mandir-babri-case-constitution-bench/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">referred to a Constitution Bench</a> </span>on January 9 this year. Earlier, a three-judge Bench had <a href="https://barandbench.com/ram-mandir-babri-masjid-constitution-bench-supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> <span style="color: #993366;">declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench.</span></a></p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">In March this year, the Bench <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/ayodhya-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-mediation-supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">referred the Ayodhya dispute to a mediation panel</a></span> comprising of former Supreme Court judge Justice <strong>FMI Kalifulla</strong>, spiritualist <strong>Sri Sri Ravi Shankar</strong>, and Senior Advocate <strong>Sriram Panchu</strong>.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">However, <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/breaking-final-hearing-in-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-to-begin-on-august-6/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">after the mediation route failed to deliver any result, the Court last week passed an order intimating that it would hear the case,</a> </span></p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">The day-to-day hearings in the case commenced yesterday, with the first set of arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. The Akhara had <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/nirmohi-akhara-sc-impleadment-ayodhya-supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">filed an impleadment application in April this year</a></span>, in view of apprehensions that the Central Government is deliberating the release of superfluous land. The Nirmohi Akhara has staked a claim in a part of the land sought to be so returned. <em>Read an account of the arguments made yesterday <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/ayodhya-live-updates-supreme-court-day-1/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">here</a></span></em>.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #993366;"><strong>Live updates of today’s hearing follow:</strong></span></em></p>.<ul style="text-align: justify;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Second round of hearing in the Ayodhya dispute commences at the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate <strong>Sushil Kumar Jain</strong> continuing with his submissions for the Nirmohi Akhara. Arguing on whether suits were barred by limitation.</li><li>Sushil Kumar Jain arguing that suit was within limitation since the cause of action would arise only after final order passed by Magistrate.</li><li>Rajeev Dhavan objects to Sushil Kumar Jain using SCR for citing judgments. Says he was not given copies of SCR. Says there should be uniformity regarding the source of citations.</li><li>Your claim for suit being within limitation is based on Articles 47 and 142 and Section 23 of Limitation Act, <strong>CJI Ranjan Gogoi</strong>. Yes, says Sushil Kumar Jain.</li><li>Arguments going on regarding when the right to sue accrues to Nirmohi Akhara – whether it accrues on the passing of the decree of attachment or on judgment by the appellate court.</li><li>Even if Suit no. 3 and 4 are held to be barred by limitation, rights of contesting parties in suit no. 1 have to be adjudicated. Nirmohi Akhara is contesting party to suit no. 1, Sushil Kumar Jain submits placing reliance on Allahabad High Court judgment.</li><li>Sushil Kumar Jain’s submissions on the aspect of limitation conclude. Now he is arguing on whether Nirmohi Akhara had possession.</li><li>Bench asking for specific evidence to prove possession by Nirmohi Akhara.</li><li>How can you prove your right of Shebaitship, <strong>Justice DY Chandrachud</strong> to Nirmohi Akhara counsel, Sushil Kumar Jain. Bench asks for evidence as Court rises of lunch; hearing to resume after lunch.</li></ul>.<p><span style="color: #993366;"><strong>Post Lunch Session</strong></span></p>.<ul><li>In the next 2 hours, we would like to see the oral and documentary evidence, CJI Ranjan Gogoi to SK Jain. Show us original documents, Justice DY Chandrachud.</li><li>Sushil Kumar Jain says documents are quoted in judgment (of High Court). Ok, do it your way, CJI Gogoi</li><li>Bench makes some further queries, Jain says he will prepare. The bench now says it will hear suit no. 5 and then get back to Jain.</li><li>Senior Advocate K Parasaran begins submissions for deity Ram Lalla.</li><li>Parasaran on Limitation; Citing judgments in relation to when cause of action arises.</li><li>K Parasaran citing historical texts to buttress contention of existence of Ram temple at Ayodya.</li><li>Faith of millions of worshippers that the particular place was where Ram was born and temple was there, is itself evidence of the same, submits K Parasaran for Ram Lalla.</li><li><strong>Justice SA Bobde</strong>: Whether somebody says, Jesus Christ was born at Bethlehem or some similar question arisen in any court in the world?</li><li><strong>K Parasaran</strong> responds: “I dont know, I’ll check up.”</li><li>A receiver having possession of property pursuant to a court order cannot be a continuing wrong, K Parasaran.</li><li>The wrong regarding placing of idols was snapped when court passed judicial order, K Parasaran.</li><li>Bench rises, hearing to resume tomorrow.</li></ul>.<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #000000;"><a href="http://bit.ly/2Tq7twI" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #000000;" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #993366;">Bar & Bench </span>is available on <span style="color: #339966;">WhatsApp</span>. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.</strong></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The hearing in the case relating to the Ayodhya/Babri Masjid-Ram Mandir case is currently underway at the Supreme Court of India.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">The case is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India <strong>Ranjan Gogoi</strong> and Justices <strong>SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan</strong> and <strong>Abdul Nazeer</strong>.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">The Ayodhya case was <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/ram-mandir-babri-case-constitution-bench/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">referred to a Constitution Bench</a> </span>on January 9 this year. Earlier, a three-judge Bench had <a href="https://barandbench.com/ram-mandir-babri-masjid-constitution-bench-supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> <span style="color: #993366;">declined to refer the matter to a larger Bench.</span></a></p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">In March this year, the Bench <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/ayodhya-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-mediation-supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">referred the Ayodhya dispute to a mediation panel</a></span> comprising of former Supreme Court judge Justice <strong>FMI Kalifulla</strong>, spiritualist <strong>Sri Sri Ravi Shankar</strong>, and Senior Advocate <strong>Sriram Panchu</strong>.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">However, <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/breaking-final-hearing-in-ram-mandir-babri-masjid-to-begin-on-august-6/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">after the mediation route failed to deliver any result, the Court last week passed an order intimating that it would hear the case,</a> </span></p>.<p style="text-align: justify;">The day-to-day hearings in the case commenced yesterday, with the first set of arguments being made on behalf of the Nirmohi Akhara. The Akhara had <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/nirmohi-akhara-sc-impleadment-ayodhya-supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">filed an impleadment application in April this year</a></span>, in view of apprehensions that the Central Government is deliberating the release of superfluous land. The Nirmohi Akhara has staked a claim in a part of the land sought to be so returned. <em>Read an account of the arguments made yesterday <span style="color: #993366;"><a href="https://barandbench.com/ayodhya-live-updates-supreme-court-day-1/" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #993366;" target="_blank">here</a></span></em>.</p>.<p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #993366;"><strong>Live updates of today’s hearing follow:</strong></span></em></p>.<ul style="text-align: justify;"><li style="text-align: justify;">Second round of hearing in the Ayodhya dispute commences at the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate <strong>Sushil Kumar Jain</strong> continuing with his submissions for the Nirmohi Akhara. Arguing on whether suits were barred by limitation.</li><li>Sushil Kumar Jain arguing that suit was within limitation since the cause of action would arise only after final order passed by Magistrate.</li><li>Rajeev Dhavan objects to Sushil Kumar Jain using SCR for citing judgments. Says he was not given copies of SCR. Says there should be uniformity regarding the source of citations.</li><li>Your claim for suit being within limitation is based on Articles 47 and 142 and Section 23 of Limitation Act, <strong>CJI Ranjan Gogoi</strong>. Yes, says Sushil Kumar Jain.</li><li>Arguments going on regarding when the right to sue accrues to Nirmohi Akhara – whether it accrues on the passing of the decree of attachment or on judgment by the appellate court.</li><li>Even if Suit no. 3 and 4 are held to be barred by limitation, rights of contesting parties in suit no. 1 have to be adjudicated. Nirmohi Akhara is contesting party to suit no. 1, Sushil Kumar Jain submits placing reliance on Allahabad High Court judgment.</li><li>Sushil Kumar Jain’s submissions on the aspect of limitation conclude. Now he is arguing on whether Nirmohi Akhara had possession.</li><li>Bench asking for specific evidence to prove possession by Nirmohi Akhara.</li><li>How can you prove your right of Shebaitship, <strong>Justice DY Chandrachud</strong> to Nirmohi Akhara counsel, Sushil Kumar Jain. Bench asks for evidence as Court rises of lunch; hearing to resume after lunch.</li></ul>.<p><span style="color: #993366;"><strong>Post Lunch Session</strong></span></p>.<ul><li>In the next 2 hours, we would like to see the oral and documentary evidence, CJI Ranjan Gogoi to SK Jain. Show us original documents, Justice DY Chandrachud.</li><li>Sushil Kumar Jain says documents are quoted in judgment (of High Court). Ok, do it your way, CJI Gogoi</li><li>Bench makes some further queries, Jain says he will prepare. The bench now says it will hear suit no. 5 and then get back to Jain.</li><li>Senior Advocate K Parasaran begins submissions for deity Ram Lalla.</li><li>Parasaran on Limitation; Citing judgments in relation to when cause of action arises.</li><li>K Parasaran citing historical texts to buttress contention of existence of Ram temple at Ayodya.</li><li>Faith of millions of worshippers that the particular place was where Ram was born and temple was there, is itself evidence of the same, submits K Parasaran for Ram Lalla.</li><li><strong>Justice SA Bobde</strong>: Whether somebody says, Jesus Christ was born at Bethlehem or some similar question arisen in any court in the world?</li><li><strong>K Parasaran</strong> responds: “I dont know, I’ll check up.”</li><li>A receiver having possession of property pursuant to a court order cannot be a continuing wrong, K Parasaran.</li><li>The wrong regarding placing of idols was snapped when court passed judicial order, K Parasaran.</li><li>Bench rises, hearing to resume tomorrow.</li></ul>.<p style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: #000000;"><a href="http://bit.ly/2Tq7twI" rel="noopener noreferrer" style="color: #000000;" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #993366;">Bar & Bench </span>is available on <span style="color: #339966;">WhatsApp</span>. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.</strong></a></span></p>