The apex court bench led by CJI Dipak Misra stood firm behind their decision despite compelling arguments put forward by senior advocate Rajeev dhavan who is appearing for the original petitioner in this matter
The Supreme court in Friday declined to refer the Babri Masjid Ram Janmabhoomi title dispute case to a larger constitutional bench without hearing arguments from all the parties.
The apex court bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra stood firm behind their decision despite compelling arguments put forward by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan who is appearing for the original petitioner in this matter.
"Tell me, are the petitions to declare polygamy unconstitutional — an issue detrimental to Muslims — much more important than the questions raised in the Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case? If so, say that now... I am here, the Press is here... please say so," Dhavan asked challenging the Bench. To this, the bench that also comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul nazeer, that they intended to hear the matter in its entirety instead of issuing piece meal directions.
At the previous hearing, the apex court observed that before deciding the title dispute of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi row, it would re-examine whether a 1994 judgment which suggests that "a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Namaz (Prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open" needs to be revisited by a larger bench.
On December 6, 1992 karsevaks had destroyed the controversial structure known as Babri Masjid and razed to the ground. The court is hearing 13 appeals against a 2010 judgement by Allahabad High Court on four civil suits filed over the title of the land that is known to Hindus as the "Ram Janmabhoomi", or the land where Hindu God Lord Ram was born.
A three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had ordered the partition of the land equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the deity, Ram Lalla..
TO HEAR ALL FIRST
Despite compelling arguments, the apex court bench stood firm on its decision that it intended to hear the matter in its entirety instead of issuing piecemeal directions
){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}
){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}