This would leave the judges with a full month to prepare their judgment, just in time before Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi retires on November 17.
Racing against time, five Supreme Court judges resolved on Wednesday to deliver the verdict in the Ayodhya title suit case before November 17, provided lawyers in the case complete arguments by October 18. This would leave the judges with a full month to prepare their judgment, just in time before Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi retires on November 17.
The CJI is part of the bench hearing the suit along with Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer.
The bench told the lawyers appearing in the case, "Let us all make a joint effort to complete arguments by October 18." Binding the parties to the case to stick to this deadline, cooperation was forthcoming from the lawyers as well. Based on the suggestion by the court, asking lawyers to sit with their colleagues and set a time-limit to their arguments, the Hindu side, Muslim side and Nirmohi Akhara gave their respective time plans.
The Muslim side led by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan estimated their arguments would stretch through the whole of next week following which the Hindu side agreed to make their reply arguments in the next three days extending to October 4.
The Nirmohi Akhara along with other interested parties comprising Hindu Mahasabha, Ram Janmabhoomi Punaruddhar Samiti and individuals including BJP leader Subramanian Swamy also said they would complete their argumetns within three to four days. The Muslim side is yet to argue.
Tentative Deadline
|
Bench indicated that if arguments tend to stretch beyond Oct 18, it would sit on Saturdays or during Dusshera break, if needed
|
| Between now and October 18, there are 16 working days |
Working out a tentative deadline based on the submissions, the bench felt that due to upcoming Dussehra holidays from October 7 to 12, it would be safe to keep aside another week for arguments and fixed October 18 as the date when arguments must complete in the case.
The court proceeded with the hearing for the 26th consecutive day with Dhavan responding to the evidence of oral witnesses presented by the Hindu side. The bench told the two sides that neither side had argued on how the court has to mould the relief.
The Allahabad High Court while deciding the suit had finally moulded the relief by ordering a three-way division of the land between the Hindu and Muslim side and the Nirmohi Akhara. "Perhaps the stage has not come but we would like to hear you on this," the bench remarked.
Dhavan created some anxious moments during his arguments when he said that there was no evidence to show that Hindus considered the inner dome of the disputed structure as the birthplace.
In 1855, after the British erected a railing, he said the Hindus prayed at the Ram Chabutra in the outer courtyard while Muslims prayed in the mosque.
But the bench cited evidence to the contrary claiming Hindus prayed at the railing believing the area inside the mosque to be the birthplace.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "Supreme Court")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}