Today, the Supreme Court has adjourned the Ayodhya case hearing after the exit of one of the five judges in the constitution bench. Justice UU Lalit recused himself saying he had been a lawyer in a related case.
The Supreme Court will take up the Ayodhya case on January 29th. The bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi will then decide on a schedule and the frequency of hearings in the case. The other judges which are included in the case are Justice S. A. Bobde, Justice NV Ramana and Justice DY Chandrachud.
The decision on Ayodhya Case, pending for six decades and at the heart of India’s most politically divisive row, comes amid demands to speed up the plan to build a Ram temple at the site where the 16th-century Babri mosque stood before it was completely destroyed by Hindu right-wing activists in 1992.
Last year, the Supreme Court refused an early hearing in the case. If the Supreme Court, however, decides today on frequent hearings in the case, it will be seen as a positive effect for those who demand a resolution to the issue before the Lok Sabha polls.
In the last two years the party (B.J.P) has been in power in Uttar Pradesh, Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, a Hindu priest as well, has made Ayodhya a showcase when it comes to development and tourism projects. Part of the plan is to build a massive Ram statue in the temple town that will be the world’s tallest. BJP hopes these moves will attract votes in the general elections, especially from those among the majority Hindus who believe that a Ram temple should be constructed in Ayodhya at the earliest.
In an official interview, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made it clear that any decision on passing an executive order on the Ram temple issue cannot be made unless the judicial process is over.
PM Modi also mentioned in a statement that “Let the judicial process be over. After the judicial process is over, whatever will be our responsibility as the government, we are ready to make all efforts. We have said in our BJP manifesto that a solution would be found to this issue under the ambit of the Constitution.”