#babri masjid demolition case judgement

[trendsfashion27]

“No One Demolished Babri”: Sharp Reactions On Twitter On Court Verdict Babri Masjid Demolition Case: BJP leaders LK Advani, MM Joshi and Uma Bharti were acquitted New Delhi: …

[newscountryindia]

SC fixes Aug 31 as new deadline for judgement in Babri Masjid demolition case Image Source : PTI Babri Masjid demolition case: August 31 fixed as new deadline The Supreme Court Friday extended by three months the time for completion of trial in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case involving BJP veterans L K Advani, M M Joshi and Uma Bharti and said that judgement should be delivered by August 31.

[news-chhondomela]

Supreme Court verdict on Babri Masjid demolition case today Latest News, SC Judgement News

Supreme Court verdict on Babri Masjid demolition case today Latest News, SC Judgement News

Kar sevaks at the site facing the Babri Masjid in July 1992. (Praveen Jain/Archives)

The Babri Masjid demolition had triggered riots in many parts of the country that left nearly 2,000 dead.

What are the cases?

The Ayodhya mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992 by ‘kar sevaks’ who claimed that it was built on the site of an ancient Ram temple. Following this, two cases were filed in Ayodhya:…

[mriduldasgupta]

Babri Masjid Demolition Case: All 32 accused with LK Advani in Babri Masjid Demolition Case handed down today || Latest today news ||

LK Advani opens his mouth as soon as the stigma of Babri destruction is erased

I sincerely welcome the verdict in the Babri Masjid demolition case. This verdict establishes my personal and BJP beliefs and commitment to the Ram Janmabhoomi movement. Veteran BJP leader LK Advani made the remarks after the verdict of Babri Masjid was announced in a special CBI court in Lucknow today. Court's Judgement

CBI announces verdict of Babri Masjid in special court Judge Surendra Kumar Yadav today pronounced the verdict of Babri Masjid in the CBI special court in Lucknow after a long 27 years. Lal Krishna Advani, Uma Bharati, Murli Manohar Joshi and 32 other accused were acquitted. The verdict was handed down due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Murli Manohar statement

Murli Manohar Joshi is also happy with the verdict Welcoming the verdict, one reaction after another started coming from the BJP. Rajnath Singh wrote on Twitter, '32 accused have been acquitted. This proves that justice has been done no matter how late. ' One of the accused Murli Manohar Joshi is also happy with the verdict.

What did Yogi say?

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath also reacted to the case. Attacking the Congress, he said, "It proves that the then Congress government hanged Sadhus, BJP leaders and Vishwa Hindu Parishad officials in bogus cases." Only for vote bank politics. Those responsible for this conspiracy should apologize to the nation.

What did Pradeep Bhattacharya say, Congress leader?

Congress  leaderPradeep Bhattacharya said the verdict was expected. I thought such a verdict would come. This verdict will hurt the secular image of the country. "I will tell the BJP opposition parties to unite against those who want to mark India as a country of a particular religion by sacrificing the unity of India," he said.

What did Sujan Chakraborty Say, CPIM leader?

CPIM leader Sujan Chakraborty said that what is happening in Modi-Shah's reign is happening. Modi-Shah is getting away without themselves. As a result, the rest will get rid of it. It is becoming clear that the verdict is coming out in the way that the government wants. The country's head is bowing in shame. Jyoti Basu commented on the incident as a barbaric party.

Also Read: US presendential Election Debate: Trump Under pressure from debate with Biden. Pointed on Trump and Modi's friendship.

What did Sougata Roy Say, Trinamool leader?

Trinamool leader Saugat Roy also said that he thought this would be the verdict. After 27 years, the secular image of India was tarnished by acquitting the accused in Raidan. The verdict shattered India's fundamental unity. Justice did not match. The Muslim Law Board will surely go to the higher court against this verdict. It is hard to believe that mistakes have been made. Which is in favor of the ruling party at the center.

Also Read: Mamta Banerjee: Don't Neglect Corona Due to Covid-19, Mamta Banerjee announced, Latest news

[bloggvalley]

Babri Masjid Case Timeline: The Long Road To Justice

Babri Masjid Case Timeline: The Long Road To Justice

The verdict in the 28-year-old case over demolition of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya will be pronounced today.

New Delhi:

Nearly three decades after the Babri Masjid — a 16th century mosque in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya — was demolished in an event that changed the country’s political and social landscape, a special CBI court in Lucknow will deliver judgementon 32 accused, including BJP veterans LK…

[news-express]

LK Advani and others acquitted welcome judgement, term it as historic All 32 accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case have been acquitted by a special CBI court in Lucknow including LK Advani, Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh and Murli Manohar Joshi.

[col-life23]

Written Arguments Filed For All 32 Accused In Babri Masjid Demolition Case The court will deliver the judgement once the arguments stage is over (Representational) Lucknow: Written arguments were filed in the special CBI court in Lucknow today on behalf of all the thirty-two accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case trial, including former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani, former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, BJP leader Uma Bharati, and VHP leaders Champat Rai, Sadhvi Rithambara and Vinay Katiyar.

[newsupdated]

Written Arguments Filed For All 32 Accused In Babri Masjid Demolition Case The court will deliver the judgement once the arguments stage is over (Representational) Lucknow: Written arguments were filed in the special CBI court in Lucknow today on behalf of all the thirty-two accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case trial, including former Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani, former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh, BJP leader Uma Bharati, and VHP leaders Champat Rai, Sadhvi Rithambara and Vinay Katiyar.

[shachisharma90]

বাবরি : অগাস্টের মধ্যে রায় ঘোষণা - S Newz

৩১ অগাস্টের মধ্যে বাবরি মামলায় অভিযুক্তদের বিরুদ্ধে রায় ঘোষণা করতেই হবে। লখনউর বিশেষ সিবিআইকে আদালতকে এমন সময়সীমা বেঁধে দিয়েছে সুপ্রিম কোর্ট। এই মামলায় অভিযুক্তরা হলেন, প্রাক্তন স্বরাষ্ট্রমন্ত্রী এ��কে আডবানি, প্রাক্তন কেন্দ্রীয় মন্ত্রী মুরলী মনোহর য…

from Snewzin's Favorite Links from Diigo https://snewz.in/sc-fixes-aug-31-as-new-deadline-for-judgement-in-babri-masjid-demolition-case/49405/

[newscountryindia]

SC fixes August 31 as new deadline for judgement in Babri Masjid demolition case Image Source : PTI Supreme Court/FILE The Supreme Court Friday extended by three months the time for completion of trial in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case involving BJP veterans L K Advani, M M Joshi and Uma Bharti and said that judgement should be delivered by August 31.

[loyallogic]

The Other Ayodhya Case- Are Findings Recorded by The Constitutional Bench of The Supreme Court In Civil Case Binding On Pending Criminal Case?

This article has been written by N. Pradhan, Indian Revenue Service Officer. In this artice the author discusses about “Are Findings Recorded by The Constitutional Bench of The Supreme Court In Civil Case Binding On Pending Criminal Case?”

The final judgement in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute, popularly called the Ayodhya case, was declared by the Supreme Court of India on 9 November 2019. The dispute emanated from the fundamental belief and assertion that Lord Ram was born 9,00,000 years ago in the Treta Yuga, in a room located under what was the central dome of the Babri Masjid. The Masjid was built on the orders of Mughal emperor Babur in the 16th century and occupied 1,482.5 square yards before its demolition by kar sevaks on December 6, 1992.

The Supreme Court ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the purpose of building a mosque. The bench delivering the verdict also mentioned about the demolition of the Babri masjid on December 6, 1992. “Justice would not prevail if the court were to overlook the entitlement of the Muslims, who have been deprived of the structure of the mosque through means which should not have been employed in a secular nation committed to the rule of law,” the bench observed. “…The entire structure of the mosque was brought down in a calculated act of destroying a place of public worship,” it said. “The Muslims have been wrongly deprived of a mosque which had been constructed well over 450 years ago.”

The said demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992, and the criminal conspiracy that led to the demolition is being heard by a Lucknow court. This is the other Ayodhya case. It is important to understand the significance and impact of the Apex Court’s words in one Ayodhya case on the other Ayodhya case?

The two Ayodhya cases are distinctive by their very nature. One is a title dispute related to ownership of the land, and the second a criminal trial arising out of FIRs filed by the CBI in relation to the demolition of the Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, which goes beyond ownership. One pertains to civil matter and the other criminal.

Now talking of civil and criminal matters, certain offences are more serious in nature and due to their negative reflection of the character of the offender in question and the societal implications of the offence being committed; the State took the responsibility of arguing such cases of criminal nature. An implication of the serious nature of criminal proceedings is the higher degree of proof that is required to convict a human being of a crime. It is established that civil proceedings use the system of ‘preponderance of probabilities’ to determine the rights and liabilities of individuals whereas criminal proceedings require the accused person’s offence to be proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

The question arises-can the findings or judgement of civil case be used as evidence in criminal proceedings? To speak legally, one is referring to inter-admissibility of civil judgments in criminal proceedings and vice-versa. X is convicted of rape case. Y, a magazine editor, publishes a report stating that X is a rapist. When X sues Y for libel, can Y adduce evidence of X’s conviction in support of his plea? Now if X is acquitted of rape charge, can he use his acquittal in subsequent proceedings to support denial of rape?.

 In M/s Karamchand Ganga Pershad & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 1244, Supreme Court, while dealing with the same issue, held as under :-

“It is well established principle of law that the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true.”

The said Judgment was delivered by a three-Judge Bench of without taking note of the Constitution Bench Judgment in M.S. Sherrif Vs. The State of Madras & Ors., AIR 1954 SC 397 on the same issue, wherein it was held as under :-

“As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.”

In K.G. Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 3372, the Supreme Court placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Privy Council in Emperor Vs. Khwaja Nazair Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 wherein it has been held as under :-

“It is conceded that the findings in a civil proceeding are not binding in a subsequent prosecution founded upon the same or similar allegations. Moreover, the police investigation was stopped and it cannot be said with certainty that no more information could be obtained. But even if it were not, it is the duty of a criminal court when a prosecution for a crime takes place before it to form its own view and not to reach its conclusion by reference to any previous decision which is not binding upon it.”

In Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370, the Supreme Court held as under :-

“Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.”

Click Above

There are no apparent provisions in civil law in India regarding admissibility of criminal judgments in civil proceedings.  Findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa as standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.

The Indian Evidence Act, mentions the relevancy of ‘other’ judgments and when they are admissible in Sections 40, 41, 42 and 43. The scheme of the Act is such that admissibility of judgments in other proceedings to criminal proceedings is an exception to the rule, and such exceptional features are laid out in the aforesaid provisions.

Section 40 -Previous Judgements relevant to bar a second suit or trail – The existence of any judgment, order or decree which by law prevents any Courts from taking cognizance of a suit or holding a trial, is a relevant fact when the question is whether such Court ought to take cognizance of such suit, or to hold such trial. The object of the provision is to avoid multiplicity of the suits and to save the precious time of the Court. In Civil Procedure Code Section 11 provides rule  of Res Judicata and in Cr.P.C and constitution it is provided that no one shall be punished for the same offense twice i.e. rule of double jeopardy.

Section 41- Relevancy of certain judgements in probate, etc., jurisdiction-  

 A final judgment, order or decree of a Competent Court, in exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, which confers upon or to take away from any person any legal character, or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing not as against any specified person but absolutely, is relevant when the existence of any legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.

Such judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof –

i) That any legal character which it confer accrued at the time when such judgment, order or decree come into operation;

ii) That any legal character to which it declares and such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment, order or decree declares it to have accrued to that person;

iii) That any legal character to which it takes away from any such person ceased at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declared that it had cased or should cease.

iv) And that anything to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the time from which such judgment, order or decree declares that it had been or should be his property.

Section 41 deals with what is known as judgement in rem, which not only bind the parties at the representatives to it, but also are binding as against the whole world.

For a judgement to be binding and conclusive proof under section 41 the following conditions have to be satisfied –

1) The judgement must be a final judgement.

2) The court delivering the judgement must be competent.

3) The judgement must have been delivered by the court in the exercise of Probate, size of Matrimonial, Admiralty or Insolvency jurisdiction.

4) The judgement must confer on or take away from any person any legal character or declare that any person is entitled to such legal character or declared that any person is entitled to any specific thing absolutely.

Section 42-Relevancy and effect of judgements, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in Section 41 –

According to Section 42, Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Section 41, are relevant if they relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the inquiry; such judgments, orders or decrees are not conclusive proof of that which they state.

Illustrations

X sues Y for trespass on his land, Y alleges the existence of a public right of way over the land, which X denies. The existence of a decree in favor of the defendant, in a suit by X against Z or a trespass on the same land, in which Z alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of ways exists.

Section 43-Judgements etc other than those mentioned in Sections 40 to 42, when relevant-

Section 43 states that Judgments, orders or decrees other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant, under some other provision of this Act.

Illustrations

A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A’s wife. B denies that C is A’s wife, but the court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A’s lifetime. C says that she never was A’s wife. The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.

A prosecuted B for stealing a cow from him, B is convicted. A, afterwards, sues C for cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.

A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C,B’s son murders A in consequence. The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime.

A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.

A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under Section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.

Thus, under Section 40 of the Act, previous judgments are admissible in support of a plea of res judicata in civil cases or of autre fois acquit or autre fois convict in criminal cases. Section 41 of the Act which only makes a final judgment of a competent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction, conferring upon, taking away from or declaring any person to be entitled to any legal character or to be entitled to any specific thing absolutely, relevant when the existence of any such legal character or the title to any such thing is relevant. Section 42 of the Act relate to matters of a public nature. Section 43 of the Act positively declares judgments other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42 to be irrelevant unless their existence is a fact in issue or is relevant under some other provision of the Act.

The findings of K.G.Premshankar case (supra) are very relevant here-

(1) the previous judgment which is final can be relied upon as provided under Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act;

(2) in civil suits between the same parties, principle of res-judicata may apply;

(3) in a criminal case, Section 300 Cr.P.C. makes provision that once a person is convicted or acquitted, he may not be tried again for the same offence if the conditions mentioned therein are satisfied;

(4) if the criminal case and the civil proceedings are for the same cause, judgment of the civil Court would be relevant if conditions of any of the Sections 40 to 43 are satisfied, but it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive except as provided in Section 41. Section 41 provides which judgment would be conclusive proof of what is stated therein.

(5) Further, the judgment, order or decree passed in a previous civil proceeding, if relevant, as provided under Sections 40 and 42 or other provisions of the Evidence Act then in each case, Court has to decide to what extent it is binding or conclusive with regard to the matter(s) decided therein. Hence, in each and every case, first question which would require consideration is whether judgment, order or decree is relevant?, if relevant its effect. It may be relevant for a limited purpose, such as, motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon facts of each case.

To conclude, with respect to the applicability and admissibility of civil judgments in criminal proceedings, the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 sets parameters to be followed concerning the admissibility of other judgments, keeping in mind the standards of proof used in civil and criminal proceedings. With respect to the admissibility of civil judgments in criminal proceedings, there exists no ambiguity due to the presence of statutory provisions in the Indian Evidence Act of 1872 that regulate the admissibility of other judgments but nevertheless make them admissible when they are clearly relevant.

References

Civil Appeal Nos 10866-10867 of 2010 & other Suits (Supreme Court of India)

The Supreme Court of India in the case of Kishan Singh (D) Thru Lrs vs Gurpal Singh & Ors on 12 August, 2010

The Supreme court of India in the case of G. Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 3372

Indian Evidence Act , 1872

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post The Other Ayodhya Case- Are Findings Recorded by The Constitutional Bench of The Supreme Court In Civil Case Binding On Pending Criminal Case? appeared first on iPleaders.

The Other Ayodhya Case- Are Findings Recorded by The Constitutional Bench of The Supreme Court In Civil Case Binding On Pending Criminal Case? published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/

[bloggvalley]

"If I Am Sent To Gallows, I Will Be Blessed": Uma Bharti On Babri Case

“If I Am Sent To Gallows, I Will Be Blessed”: Uma Bharti On Babri Case

New Delhi:

BJP leader Uma Bharti today said “it does not matter” to her what the judgement in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case will be. Uma Bharti, LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi are among the BJP leaders accused of conspiracy in the case.

“I was called by the court for my statement and I have told the court what was true. It does not matter to me what the judgement will be. If I am…

[paulbenedictblog]

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

Bbc news La corte india le da el lugar sagrado de Ayodhya a los hindúes

Bbc news

.spinner-container width:25%; top:20px; left:50%; margin-left:-12.5%; border-radius:8px; position:fixed; text-align:center; box-shadow:0 0 10px rgba(0,0,0,0.24); background:#fff; overflow:hidden; .spinner-container p font-family:'Roboto', Arial, sans-serif; color:rgba(0,0,0,0.87); margin:12px 0 16px 0; padding:0; font-size:12px; .spinner-container img width:22px; height:22px; margin:16px 0 0; padding:0;

Translating...

Media playback is unsupported to your instrument

Media captionThe BBC's Vikas Pandey explains the historical Supreme Court verdict in Ayodhya holy attach dispute

The disputed holy attach of Ayodhya in northern India must be given to Hindus who need a temple built there, the country's Supreme Court has dominated.

The case, which has been bitterly contested for decades by Hindus and Muslims, centres on the possession of the land in Uttar Pradesh inform.

Muslims would obtain one more inform of land to abolish a mosque, the court docket mentioned.

Many Hindus judge the attach is the birthplace of 1 of their most revered deities, Lord Ram.

Muslims express they've worshipped there for generations.

On the centre of the row is the 16th Century Babri mosque which turn out to be demolished by Hindu mobs in 1992, sparking riots that killed nearly about 2,000 other folks.

Bbc news What did the court docket express?

Within the unanimous verdict, the court docket mentioned that a story by the Archaeological Appreciate of India (ASI) equipped proof that the stays of a constructing "that turn out to be no longer Islamic" turn out to be beneath the structure of the demolished Babri mosque.

The court docket mentioned that, given the total proof presented, it had definite that the disputed land must be given to Hindus for a temple to Lord Ram, whereas Muslims would be given land in utterly different locations to abolish a mosque.

It then directed the federal authorities to situation up a belief to prepare and oversee the event of the temple.

Nonetheless, the court docket added that the demolition of the Babri mosque turn out to be against the rule of thumb of law.

Bbc news What has the reaction to the verdict been?

No topic warnings by authorities no longer to rejoice the verdict, BBC correspondents in court docket express they heard chants of "Jai Shree Ram" (Hail Lord Ram) outside as the judgement turn out to be pronounced.

"It is a in point of fact balanced judgement and it's miles a victory for folks of India," a felony professional for one of many Hindu events informed journalists soon after.

Before every little thing, a representative for the Muslim litigants mentioned they weren't satisfied and would reach to a resolution whether or no longer to position a expect to for a review after that they had learn the total judgement.

Nonetheless, the essential group of litigants has now mentioned that this might perhaps increasingly honest no longer enchantment against the verdict.

Commence air the court docket, the topic has been largely soundless.

A full bunch of alternative folks were detained in Ayodhya on Friday forward of the verdict, amid fears of violence.

Hundreds of police officers accept as true with also been deployed in town, whereas stores and colleges were shut till Monday.

The authorities issued an show banning the publication of photos of the destruction of the Babri mosque.

Social media platforms are being monitored for inflammatory yelp material, with police even replying to tweets and asking customers to delete them.

High Minister Narendra Modi reacted to the verdict on Twitter and mentioned that it must no longer be considered as a "defend or loss for any one".

What turn out to be arguably one of many arena's most contentious property dispute has somehow reach to an live.

The dispute over the inform has polarised, frustrated and exhausted India.

The motive is that this is no longer a slow civil topic. It turn out to be touched by religion (Hindus judge the inform turn out to be the birthplace of Lord Ram, a revered deity) violence (the demolition of the mosque in 1992) and subterfuge (idols of Lord Ram were placed in the mosque surreptitiously in 1949).

Saturday's unanimous judgement by the 5 most senior judges of the court docket will with moderately of luck result in some reconciliation that the country badly needs.

The verdict showed "judicial craftsmanship and statesmanship the attach the letter of the law turn out to be adhered to, nevertheless the comfort turn out to be moulded, taking into chronicle the ground realities," felony professional Sanjay Hegde informed me. The judges appear to accept as true with long past by the proof laid forward of it. "They've applied a plaster. Let's no longer reopen the wounds," Mr Hegde added.

Will the verdict result in a closure of past animosities and merit shut India's deepening religious fissures? Handiest time will show.

For the moment, India's essential communities must steer definite of triumphalism - because sooner or later there are no victors and vanquished, in what is with out a doubt a contestation of religion.

Bbc news What's the row in actuality about?

Many Hindus judge the Babri Masjid turn out to be in actuality constructed on the ruins of a Hindu temple that turn out to be demolished by Muslim invaders in the 16th Century.

Muslims express they equipped prayers at the mosque till December 1949 when some Hindus placed an idol of Ram in the mosque and began to adore the idols.

The 2 religious teams accept as true with long past to court docket repeatedly over who must manipulate the attach.

Since then, there were calls to manufacture a temple on the region the attach the mosque as soon as stood.

Hinduism is India's majority religion and is thought of as more than 4,000 years venerable. India's first Islamic dynasty turn out to be established in the early 13th Century.

Bbc news Possess religious tensions eased in India in present years?

Ever for the reason that Narendra Modi-led Hindu nationalist BJP first came to energy in 2014, India has considered deepening social and religious divisions.

The demand the event of a Hindu temple in Ayodhya has grown significantly loud, and has mostly reach from MPs, ministers and leaders from the BJP because it took situation of labor.

Restrictions on the sale and slaughter of cows - thought just a few holy animal by the majority Hindus - accept as true with ended in vigilante killings of a range of alternative folks, most of them Muslims who were transporting cattle.

An uninhibited point out of muscular Hindu nationalism in other areas has also contributed to religious tension.

Most honest recently, the country's residence minister Amit Shah mentioned he would procure "illegal migrants" - understood to be Muslim - from the country via a authorities device that turn out to be frail honest recently in the north-japanese inform of Assam.

function gtElInit() var lib=new google.translate.TranslateService(); lib.setCheckVisibility(false); lib.translatePage('en', 'es', function (progress, done, error) );

[risingpakistan]

Babri Mosque : History, Architecture, & Facts

Babri Masjid was a mosque in Ayodhya. It has been a focus of dispute between the Hindu and Muslim communities since the 18th century. According to the mosque's inscriptions, it was built in 1528–29 (935 AH) by general Mir Baqi, on orders of the Mughal emperor Babur. The mosque was attacked and demolished by Karsevaks in 1992 and ignited communal violence across the country. The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("Rama's fort"). The existence of the temple itself is a matter of controversy. In 2003, a report by the Archaeological Survey of India suggested that there appears to have existed an old structure at the site. Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. In 1949 Hindu activists associated with the Hindu Mahasabha surreptitiously placed idols of Rama inside the mosque, after which the government locked the building to avoid further disputes.

Court cases were filed by both Hindus and Muslims asking for access. On 6 December 1992, a large group of Hindu activists belonging to the Vishva Hindu Parishad and allied organisations demolished the mosque, triggering riots all over India, killing around 2,000 people, many of them Muslim. In September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the Hindu claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Muslims were also awarded one-third area of the site for the construction of a mosque. The decision was subsequently appealed by all parties to the Supreme Court, wherein a five judge bench heard a title suit from August to October 2019. On 9 November 2019, the Supreme Court quashed the lower court's judgement and ordered the land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered to the government to give an alternate 5 acre land to Sunni Waqf Board. 

Etymology

The name "Babri Masjid" comes from the name of the Mughal emperor Babur, who is said to have ordered its construction. Before the 1940s, it was called Masjid-i Janmasthan ("mosque of the birthplace") including in official documents.

Architecture

The rulers of the Delhi Sultanate and their successors, the Mughals, were great patrons of art and architecture and constructed many fine tombs, mosques and madrasas. These have a distinctive style which bears influences of "later Tughlaq" architecture. Mosques all over India were built in different styles; the most elegant styles developed in areas where indigenous art traditions were strong and local artisans were highly skilled. Thus regional or provincial styles of mosques grew out of local temple or domestic styles, which were conditioned in their turn by climate, terrain, materials, hence the enormous difference between the mosques of Bengal, Kashmir and Gujarat. The Babri Mosque followed the architectural school of Jaunpur Sultanate. When viewed from the west side, it resembled the Atala Masjid in Jaunpur.

Demolition

In April 1984, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) initiated a campaign to gather public support for Hindu access to the Babri Masjid and other structures that had been allegedly built over Hindu shrines. To raise public awareness, VHP planned nationwide rath yatras (chariot processions), the first of which took place in September–October 1984, from Sitamarhi to Ayodhya. The campaign was temporarily suspended after assassination of Indira Gandhi, but revived in from 25 places on 23 October 1985. On 25 January 1986, a 28-year-old local lawyer Umesh Chandra Pandey, appealed to a court to remove the restrictions on Hindu worship in the Babri Masjid premises. Subsequently, the Rajiv Gandhi government ordered the locks on the Babri Masjid gates to be removed. Earlier, the only Hindu ceremony permitted at the site was a Hindu priest performing an annual puja.

After the ruling, all Hindus were given access to the site, and the mosque gained some function as a Hindu temple. Communal tension in the region worsened when the VHP received permission to perform a shilanyas (stone-laying ceremony) at the disputed site before the national election in November 1989. A senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, L K Advani, started a rath yatra, embarking on a 10,000 km journey starting from the south and heading towards Ayodhya. On 6 December 1992, BJP, VHP and RSS leaders gathered at the site to offer prayers and perform a symbolic kar seva. At noon, a teenage Kar Sevak (volunteer) was "vaulted" on to the dome and that signalled the breaking of the outer cordon. Soon after, a large number of kar sevaks demolished the mosque.

Aftermath

Communal riots between Hindus and Muslims occurred across India immediately following demolition of the mosque. Rioting in the immediate aftermath resulted in the deaths of an estimated 2,000 people. Six weeks of riots further erupted in Bombay, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 900 people. 

Courtesy : Wikipedia

[tnewsindia]

Uma Bharti On Babri Case, If I Am Sent To Gallows, I Will Be Blessed

Uma Bharti On Babri Case, If I Am Sent To Gallows, I Will Be Blessed

[ad_1]

New Delhi:

BJP leader Uma Bharti today said “it does not matter” to her what the judgement in the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition case will be. Uma Bharti, LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi are among the BJP leaders accused of conspiracy in the case.

“I was called by the court for my statement and I have told the court what was true. It does not matter to me what the judgement will be. If I…

[theindianewstoday-blog]

Supreme Court Fixes Deadline August 31 For Judgement In Babri Masjid Demolition Case

https://theindianewstoday.com/supreme-court-fixes-deadline-august-31-for-judgement-in-babri-masjid-demolition-case/ Supreme Court Fixes Deadline August 31 For Judgement In Babri Masjid Demolition Case