Ranjan Gogoi adjourns Ayodhya hearing till 29 Jan as Justice UU Lalit recuses self: Key takeaways from Supreme Court order

The hearing in the Ayodhya case has been adjourned to 29 January after Muslim petitioners objected to the presence of Justice UU Lalit in the five-judge bench constituted to hear the case. Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, while dictating the order, said that the Constitution Bench hearing the matter will be re-constituted after Justice Lalit recused since he had appeared in a connected matter earlier as a lawyer.

#Breaking: Constitution Bench hearing #RamMandir - #BabriMasjid case to be reconstituted after Justice UU Lalit recuses since he had appeared in a connected matter earlier as a lawyer.

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) January 10, 2019

Iqbal Ansari, who is the main litigant from the Muslim side in the Ayodhya dispute, while speaking to CNN-News18 said, “Lots of people were hopeful that the hearing will begin today, but we have to obey on what the Supreme Court decides. The court will not come under any kind of religious pressure. No ordinance or law will be passed on the basis of religion.” He added that the demolishing of the Babri Masjid was a part of a larger political conspiracy, but “this time around, people are intelligent, they understand and will not let those who indulge in such stunts come to power.” Reports said that the Supreme Court turned into a fortress ahead of the hearing. The bench led by the Chief Justice of India Gogoi initially comprised of Justice SA Bobde, NV Ramana, Uday U Lalit and DY Chandrachud. The CJI also clarified that there was no hearing on the case and only a schedule was to be fixed. Senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan submitted that one of the judges, Justice Lalit, had appeared in a connected matter. Dhavan said that Justice Lalit had appeared as a lawyer for Kalyan Singh in a criminal case related to the dispute. “I am bringing it to Your Lordships notice though we don’t have any objection to him hearing the matter. It is entirely up to Your Lordships,” Dhavan was quoted as saying by Bar and Bench. Following this Justice Lalit requested to recuse himself from the case. The decision to post the matter before a five-judge Constitution Bench has been taken by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules, the apex court clarifies in its order. The apex court registry informed the CJI that 120 issues have been framed and 88 witnesses have been examined. The judgment runs into 8,500-plus typed pages, the Supreme Court said. The hearing in the Ayodhya case has been adjourned to 29 January after Muslim petitioners objected to the presence of Justice UU Lalit in the five-judge bench constituted to hear the case. [caption id=“attachment_5307291” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Representational image. PTI[/caption] The Supreme Court also said that “there is a history regarding correctness of translation of documents”, and directed the registry to engage official translators and submit a report regarding the correctness of the translated documents. Speaking to CNN-News18 about the Ram Janmabhoomi title case, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy said, “This hearing is a limited one, as it only looks into the question of title of the disputed land. It has nothing to do with the construction of the temple, which is a separate hearing.” Talking about his party’s commitment to build Ram Temple in Ayodhya, he said that it is not a political act. “A new generation of the country says do it now, and so the temple will be built,” he added. How was the matter placed before the Constitution Bench? The decision by the CJI to set up a Constitution Bench for deciding Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri title dispute is not only surprising but also a first of its kind. There is perhaps no precedent in the Supreme Court when a Constitution Bench has been set up by way of an administrative order of a CJI without there being a reference by a bench of lesser composition, or questions having been framed in the matter to show its necessity. Clarifying his stand on setting up a constitutional bench for the hearing, CJI Gogoi said: “Order 6, Rule 1 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 states the minimum number of judges should be two on a bench. There is no upper limit. CJI can use his discretion on the basis of the facts & circumstances of each case.”

CJI Gogoi rests the controversy as to why he set up a CB in #Ayodhya: Order 6, Rule 1 of SC Rules, 2013 states the min no. of judges should be 2 on a bench. There is no upper limit. CJI can use his discretion on the basis of the facts & circumstances of each case. @LiveLawIndia

— Namit Saxena (@namitsaxena2007) January 10, 2019

More from India

'Mizoram is at the forefront now': PM Modi inaugurates Bairabi-Sairang New Rail line in Aizawl PM Modi in Manipur today, to visit Meitei-majority Imphal Valley, Kuki heartland Churachandpur

Ever since the notice sending the case to Constitution Bench was issued, there was a lot of debate surrounding how the same could have been done. The issue was raised today by Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan and Harish Salve. The Court clarified in its order that it was done by CJI Ranjan Gogoi on the administrative side, pursuant to the Supreme Court Rules. Justice Gogoi’s order is unique also because it has apparently nullified a judicial order in the same case whereby the prayer for a Constitution Bench had been declined by a three-judge bench. _Here's the timeline of the Ayodhya land dispute case_: A three-judge bench of the top court on 27 September last year, by 2:1 majority, refused to refer to a five-judge constitution bench for reconsideration of the observations in its 1994 judgement that a mosque was not integral to Islam. The matter had arisen during the hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute. When the matter was last taken up on 4 January, there was no indication that the land dispute case would be referred to a constitution bench as the apex court had simply said that further orders in the matter would be passed on January 10 by “the appropriate bench, as may be constituted”. The newly set up five-judge bench comprises not only the incumbent CJI but the four judges who are in line to be CJI in the future. Justice Gogoi’s successor would be Justice Bobde followed by Justices Ramana, Lalit and Chandrachud. A notice on the apex court website on Tuesday read: “Take notice that the following matters (petitions in the Ayodhya land dispute) will be listed on Thursday the 10th January, 2019 at 10.30 am in Chief Justice’s court before the constitution bench comprising the Chief Justice, Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramana, Uday Umesh Lalit and Dr D Y Chandrchud.” As many as 14 appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land be partitioned equally among the three parties – the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. The apex court on 29 October last year had fixed the matter in the first week of January before the “appropriate bench”. Later, an application was moved for according an urgent hearing by advancing the date, but the top court had refused the plea, saying it had already passed an order on October 29 relating to the hearing of the matter. The plea for early hearing was moved by the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha (ABHM) which is one of the respondents in the appeal filed by legal heirs of M Siddiq, one of the original litigants in the case. Various Hindutva organisations have been demanding an ordinance on early construction of Ram temple at the disputed site. Recently, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had suggested that any decision on an ordinance on Ram temple in Ayodhya can happen only after the completion of the judicial process. Modi’s comments had come amidst heightened demands by Hindutava organisations, including the RSS, for an ordinance for an early construction of the temple. “Let the judicial process take its own course. Don’t weigh it in political terms. Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as government, we are ready to make all efforts,” the prime minister had said during an interview, broadcast by several TV channels.