The district Magistrate of Ayodhya Anju Kumar Jha has imposed Section144 in Ayodhya district in anticipation of the verdict in the Ayodhya Case.
He also said that the decision to impose Section 144 was also taken while considering the upcoming festivals.
The Supreme Court has said that it will conclude the hearing in the Ayodhya Case by 17 October, a day before the earlier deadline. Supreme court will announce its verdict in the Babri masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute on November 17th.
Babri Masjid Demolition
The Babri Masjid built in 16h century was demolished by Karsevaks belonging to many hindu organisations like VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS. BJP rallied politically to make a temple at the site where masjid was. BJP stalwart L. K. Advani had carried a month long rath yatra to rally hindus to build Ram temple at the Babri Masjid site.
On 6 December 1992 the VHP and the BJP organised a rally at the site involving 150,000 volunteers, known as kar sevaks. The rally turned violent, and the crowd overwhelmed security forces and tore down the mosque.
A subsequent inquiry into the incident found 68 people responsible, including several leaders of the BJP and the VHP.
The demolition resulted in riots between Hindu and Muslim communities for several months in several places in India causing the death of at least 2,000 people.
Supreme Court hearing
In 2010, Allahabad High Court judgment had ruled that the land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among the three parties: the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, and Ram Lalla.
This year on 9th january, the Ayodhya Case was referred to a Constitution Bench. A Constitution Bench comprising five judges, headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is hearing the matter.
Arguments from all three parties are being heard by the bench. All three parties lay claim to the disputed land.
The counsel for deity Ram Lalla claims that there is “proof beyond doubt” about the existence of a “massive structure” beneath the demolished Babri Masjid in Ayodhya, and inference from excavated materials can be drawn of it being a temple.
Sunni Waqf Board is represented by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan. They have objected that the birthplace cannot be a juristic entity and moreover, it has been made a party in 1989 to ensure that no law applies to it and other claimants are “knocked off”.
In a couple of days decision will be sealed on one of the most long pending and contentious political issues of India.
