Ayodhya Verdict: Live Updates from the Supreme Court Bar & Bench November 9 2019

Ayodhya Verdict: Live Updates from the Supreme Court
Bar & Bench November 9 2019

The Supreme Court of India is set to deliver its judgment in the Ayodhya dispute today at 10.30 am. The judgment will be pronounced by a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.
The hearing in the Ayodhya case began after the mediation panel report suggested that the parties had not arrived at any settlement. The Court had earlier agreed to give mediation a chance and had set up a three-member mediation panel.
The hearing in the case had lasted for 40 days.
Here are the Live Updates:
The Constitution Bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi has assembled.

The doors of CJI Courtroom opened, a crowd of lawyers and scribes have rushed in. The pushing and shoving reached dangerously risky levels.
Pronouncement of Judgment commences. CJI Gogoi: “we would request silence please”
Judges are signing the judgment.
The Ayodhya Judgment will be a unanimous judgment.
Pronouncement of judgment to last for half an hour
“Court should preserve balance”, Supreme Court.
“Mosque built by Mir Baqi on order of Babur”. “Idols were placed in the mosque in 1949”, Supreme Court
This Court set up under the Constitutional scheme should defer from interfering with faith and belief of worshippers. Secularism basic feature of the Constitution.
The bench now describing the Suits and the reliefs claimed
Suit 3 filed by Nirmohi Akhara is governed by Article 120 of Limitation Act and is barred by limitation, Supreme Court
The claim of Nirmohi Akhara is only of management. Nirmohi Akhara is not a Shabait, rules Supreme Court
#Breaking: Ram Janma Bhoomi not a juristic person, holds Supreme Court.
There is adequate material in the ASI report to conclude the following: Babri Masjid not constructed on vacant land. There was a structure underlying the disputed structure. The underlying structure was not an Islamic structure, Supreme Court.
ASI refrained from recording a finding on whether the mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple, Supreme Court observes.
The finding of title cannot be based only on the Expert report of ASI, Supreme Court. Title to the land should be decided based on settled legal principles, the Supreme Court.
Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born right below the central dome of the disputed structure, Supreme Court. Both Hindu and Muslim witnesses indicate that Hindus and Muslims were offering prayers at the disputed site, Supreme Court.
Whether a belief is justified is beyond judicial inquiry. Once faith is established, courts should defer to it: Supreme Court
The title should be decided based on evidence in a court of law. The title cannot be established based on faith and belief, the Supreme Court.
Suit 4 of Sunni Board is a suit for possession and is covered by Article 142 of Limitation Act. So the limitation is 12 years and Suit 4 is within limitation, Supreme Court.
Possession, as asserted by Muslims, cannot meet the threshold of adverse possession: Supreme Court
From documentary evidence it emerges that prior to 1857, there was no exclusion of Hindus from worshipping at the site, Supreme Court.
The outer courtyard became a focal point of worshipping by the Hindus Riots of 1934 indicate that the possession of inner courtyard became a matter of serious contention Muslims have not been able to establish possessory title to the inner courtyard, Supreme Court.
The Muslims have not brought evidence to show possessory title, there is no evidence to show the offer of Namaz by Muslims to the exclusion of Hindus. Hindus have been able to establish unimpeded possession of the outer courtyard, Supreme Court.
The disputed site is one composite plot. The inner courtyard is a contested site. Evidence indicates no abandonment of mosque by Muslims, SC
Destruction of mosque against rule of law, Supreme Court.
Both Suit 4 of Sunni Board and suit 5 of Ram Lalla have to be decreed and relief should be moulded. Every judge of this court has the task to uphold the Constitution, the Supreme Court. Cannot differentiate between one religion and another, Supreme Court.
On balance of probabilities, clear evidence that Hindus worshipped in Outer Courtyard As regards Inner Courtyard, no evidence by Muslims to show exclusive possession by them prior to 1857: Supreme Court

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *