The Supreme Court will begin hearing the Ayodhya case on February 26. The bank of five judges of the main court led by the President of the Supreme Court of India, Ranjan Gogoi, will hear the issue of land dispute Ram-Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid at 10.30 am.
In addition to the CJI, the other judges at the bank are Judge DY Chandrachud, Judge Ashok Bhushan and Judge S Abdul Nazeer.
The hearing of the Ayodhya lawsuit case was adjourned on January 27 after one of the five judges was not available at the constitution bank, Judge S A Bobde.
The constitution bank will hear appeals against the 2010 High Court ruling in Allahabad, issued in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre lot in Ayodhya will be divided equally between three parties: the Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
The Ayodhya affair has been pending before the Supreme Court since 2010. Last year, a court headed by the then president of the court, Dipak Misra, indicated that the dispute would be heard day by day.
Also read: In the case of Ayodhya, more than 30,000 pages, Awadhi and Persian scripts, videos
But then he had to decide on a preliminary issue raised by the Muslim parties that demanded that the Supreme Court first establish and decide whether a mosque was an integral part of Islam. They wanted the court to review a 1994 ruling.
On September 27, the Supreme Court resolved the issue by rejecting the dispute by a 2-1 majority and refused to refer the matter to a Constitution Bank. With the retirement of CJI Dipak Misra, a new bank had to hear the case of land dispute.
On October 29, a bank led by the current CJI Ranjan Gogoi settled the case during the first week of January before the “appropriate bank”.
Also read: Clerics question the time of Ayodhya’s request from the Center in the Supreme Court, the Shiite junta greets him
A delay in resolving the Ayodhya dispute has led to demands for an ordinance or executive order for the early construction of a majestic Ram temple on the disputed site.
In an interview, Prime Minister Narendra Modi indicated that any decision on such an ordinance could be made only after the completion of the judicial process.