Lucknow: Ahead of Supreme Court’s verdict on the Ayodhya issue, the security and intelligence agencies have been put on high alert.
Sources told News18 that the Intelligence Bureau (IB) has done a review of important religious places in Uttar Pradesh and special security plans have been rolled out for Ayodhya, Mathura and Kashi. A team of IB sleuths has also been stationed in Ayodhya and a coordination meeting is also likely to be held between the security agencies.
The leaves of administrative officers in Uttar Pradesh have already been cancelled till November 30 2019 as a precautionary measure as the hearing in the Ayodhya land dispute case has entered the final phase in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had on October 16 concluded hearing in the politically sensitive case of Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute in Ayodhya and reserved the judgment. The bench heard for 40 days the arguments of the Hindu and the Muslim sides.
A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, granted three days to contesting parties to file written notes on 'moulding of relief' or narrowing down the issues on which the court is required to adjudicate.
The other members of the bench are justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer. The protracted hearing in the Ayodhya dispute had entered the crucial final leg on October 14 when the apex court resumed proceedings on the 38th day after the week-long Dussehra break.
The Constitution bench, which started the day-to-day proceedings on August 6 after mediation proceedings failed to find an amicable solution to the vexatious dispute, had revised the deadline for wrapping up the proceedings.
Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla. Initially, as many as five lawsuits were filed in the lower court. The first one was filed by Gopal Singh Visharad, a devotee of “Ram Lalla”, in 1950 to seek enforcement of the right to worship of Hindus at the disputed site.
In the same year, the Paramahansa Ramachandra Das also filed the lawsuit for continuation of worship and keeping the idols under the central dome of the now-demolished disputed structure. The plea was later withdrawn. Later, the Nirmohi Akahara also moved the trial court in 1959 seeking management and “'shebaiti'” (devotee) rights over the 2.77 acre disputed land. Then came the lawsuit of the Uttar Pradesh Sunni Central Wakf Board which moved the court in 1961, claiming title right over the disputed property.
The deity, ‘Ram Lalla Virajman’ through next friend and former Allahabad High Court judge Deoki Nandan Agrawal, and the Janambhoomi (the birthplace) moved the lawsuit in 1989, seeking title right over the entire disputed property on the key ground that the land itself has the character of the deity and of a “Juristic entity”.
Later, all the lawsuits were transferred to the Allahabad High Court for adjudication following the demolition of the disputed Ram Janambhoomi-Babri masjid structure on December 6, 1992, sparking communal riots in the country. Earlier, the bench had said it would wrap up the hearing by October 17, a day sooner than the earlier schedule.
Fixing the schedule for the final leg of the lengthy arguments, it had said that the Muslim side would complete the arguments on October 14 and thereafter, two days would be granted to the Hindu parties to sum up their rejoinders by October 16. The apex court had on August 6 commenced day-to-day proceedings in the case as the mediation proceedings initiated to find the amicable resolution had failed.
It had taken note of the report of the three-member panel, comprising Justice FMI Kallifulla, spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravishankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, that mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months, did not result in any final settlement and it had to decide the matter pending before it.