Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid row: SC to decide on early hearing of disputed Ayodhya site
Supreme Court said it will decide on a plea for an early hearing of appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court order directing the splitting of the disputed site at Ayodhya
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said it will decide on a plea for an early hearing of appeals challenging the Allahabad High Court order directing the splitting of the disputed site at Ayodhya.
"We will take a decision on it," said a bench of Chief Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice DY Chandrachud as BJP Rajya Sabha member Subramanian Swamy sought early hearing of the matter pending before the court for seven years.
The Allahabad High Court had in 2010 directed that the Ayodhya site, where the Babri Masjid once stood, be split between Nirmohi Akhara, the Waqf Board and the Ramlala, who were all claimants.
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court by its 30 September 2010, verdict ordered that the land around the disputed site would be divided into three parts — one for deity (Ramlala Virajmaan), another for Nirmohi Akhara — a Hindu sect and an original litigant in the case and third for the Muslims.
The Supreme Court had put the Allahabad High court verdict on hold on 9 May 2011, describing it as a "rare judgment whose operation has to be stayed".
Lawyer's Voice, which has filed the plea, has sought an urgent hearing on the case stating that a professional and efficient investigation is needed to ensure it doesn't happen again
NEET PG Counselling: Supreme Court to give order on EWS case today, a look at what the case is all about
The matter pending before the court has been filed by resident doctors who have challenged a 29 July 2021 notification by the Centre introducing 27 percent OBC quota and 10 percent EWS quota in the NEET all-India quota seats
SC directs Supertech to enter into contract within week with firm to demolish 40 storey twin-towers in Noida
The top court also directed Supertech Ltd to make the refund payments to the home buyers without prejudice to their rights and contentions