Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court of India had duly adjourned the hearing of the matter of Ayodhya as Justice Lalit had recused from being the decision maker in the matter. Justice Lalit was already playing a greater role in Kalyan Singh’s matter that had served in the position of Chief Minister of and was duly alleged in the case Of Babri Masjid. It is also significant to note that Justice Dhawan had also submitted which actually witnessed astonishing behavior from the judges. It was mentioned by Chief Justice Gogoi that Justice Lalit had made a comment catering to the notion that two cases that is Kalyan Singh’s case and the case of Land dispute in Ayodhya were actually operating in different spirits and was very unique from each other.
Hon’ble Chief Justice Gogoi had catered to the fact that the submission given by Justice Dhawan was not on the grounds of the procedure of the Constitution bench. It is significant to note that a bench of three judges including Hon’ble former Chief Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Abdul Nazeer and justice Ashok Bhushan had come up with a significant decision that by majority of 2:1 ratio it was not required to involve the larger bench into the matter. In the Ismail Faruqui case it was held by the court that "offering namaz in mosque was not an essential feature of Islam" thus with this regard Justice Dhawan wanted the interference of larger bench. However, former CJI Deepak Misra and Justice Bhushan had catered to the view point that the judgement given in Ismail Faruqui case was not on the same spirit or was not related to Ayodhya’s property dispute case.
The Supreme Court had said On October 29, that the first week of January would witness the fixation of the date of hearing, however, CJI Gogoi and Justice Kaul decided to postpone the date to 10th January.
In the year of 2017 a plea regarding the 2019 Lok Sabha elections was made in December 2017, the plea was to postpone the hearing since the political atmosphere was not suitable for commencement of any proceedings. However, the plea was turned down by the bench of the then CJI Misra.
86540
103860
630
114
59824