The Supreme Court on Friday refused to grant an urgent hearing to civil appeals pertaining to the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case. “At the moment, we don’t have time. We can’t accept your plea for early hearing,” a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud curtly told BJP leader Subramanian Swamy.
Days after asking Swamy to suggest an amicable resolution to the land dispute through a negotiated settlement, saying it was as a matter of “sentiments and religion”, the bench declined to fix the date for the hearing.
The bench also pulled up Swamy for not informing the court on March 21 that he was not a party to the title suits. “We were never told that you are not a party. We were only informed by the media,” the bench told Swamy, who was then given the task of exploring the option of resolution of the long-pending dispute through talks with interested parties.
Swamy submitted that he was an intervenor in the matter and his impleadment application has been pending before the court. “My faith has been affected for not being able to pray at the site...I am on the constitutional issue. A temple should be there. If they want to take the property, they can take it,” he submitted. The court, however, said it does not have time to fix the matter for consideration.
Days after asking Swamy to suggest an amicable resolution to the land dispute through a negotiated settlement, saying it was as a matter of “sentiments and religion”, the bench declined to fix the date for the hearing.
The bench also pulled up Swamy for not informing the court on March 21 that he was not a party to the title suits. “We were never told that you are not a party. We were only informed by the media,” the bench told Swamy, who was then given the task of exploring the option of resolution of the long-pending dispute through talks with interested parties.
Swamy submitted that he was an intervenor in the matter and his impleadment application has been pending before the court. “My faith has been affected for not being able to pray at the site...I am on the constitutional issue. A temple should be there. If they want to take the property, they can take it,” he submitted. The court, however, said it does not have time to fix the matter for consideration.
Liked the story?
0
0
0
0
0
