SC asserts won't hear Ayodhya case beyond Oct 18

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Hindu and the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya dispute to specify their time schedule to conclude the argument in the case related to Babri Masjid and Ram temple, saying there would not be an extra day after October 18.

A five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said it would a miracle to write the judgement within four weeks.

The CJI who is heading the five-judge bench is to retire on November 17.

As soon as the bench assembled on 32 nd date of hearing, the CJI said the matter has to be concluded by October 18 as it won't be heard beyond that. He asked the counsel to decide among themselves about the schedule.

In the post-lunch session, as a counsel from the Hindu side wanted time to argue, the CJI said, “Today is the 32 nd day of the hearing. You come now and say you also want to argue. Will I go on hearing till my last working day. You keep on coming with one plea or other.”

The advocate for one of the Hindu parties- Dharam Das fighting against Nirmohi Akhara over management rights -- wanted time slot to be given to him.

“We have already given the schedule. We are hard-pressed for time,” the CJI said, asking the counsel to adjust the slot by discussing with other advocates.

During the hearing, the Muslim parties on Thursday made a U-turn on questioning the authorship of the summary of 2003 ASI report, which had held that a massive structure pre-existed the Babri Masjid, and apologised to the Supreme Court for wasting its time.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Muslim side, submitted that they do not wish to question the authorship of the summary of the ASI report, which had found artefacts, idols, pillars and other remains suggesting the existence of massive structure beneath the Babri Masjid.

The court had on Wednesday asked them as to how their objections to the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) report could be entertained at this stage when they failed to take the legal remedy available to them under the law before the Allahabad High Court.

Going for the damage control, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is the lead lawyer for the Muslim parties, apologised for the submissions to that effect made by senior advocate Meenakshi Arora for the considerable duration on Wednesday.

"It is not expected that every page of the report needs to be signed. The authorship of the report and the summary need not be questioned. If we had wasted my lords time, then we apologise for that. There is no point going into that discussion as it is futile. The report in question has an author and we are not questioning the authorship," Dhavan said.