<p>The Supreme Court's Constitution bench would on Thursday take up the matter pertaining to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute.</p>.<p>The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justice S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud, all the four future chief justices, may determine the future course of hearing in the 70-year-long suit.</p>.<p>The bench was set up on Tuesday. Notably, the order to refer the matter to a Constitution bench was passed on administrative side by the CJI.</p>.<p>This was in contrast to the September 27 judgement by a three-judge bench presided over by then CJI Dipak Misra which by a majority view of 2:1 declined to set up a larger bench.</p>.<p>However, it is understood that the CJI exercised his administrative power as the master of roster to set up the Constitution bench.</p>.<p>It is to be seen how the parties to the dispute would respond to the decision.</p>.<p>Notably, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a recent interview, said the government would wait for the judicial process before taking any decision on the subject. Saffron organisations had repeatedly clamoured for passing a law or issuing an Ordinance to ensure construction of Ram temple in view of inordinate delay in the apex court's decision.</p>.<p>A batch of appeals have been pending before the top court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, which ordered that the 2.77 acre land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.</p>.<p>On September 27, the Supreme Court by a majority view of 2:1 rejected the demand by the Muslims side to refer the matter to a larger bench for a reconsideration of a 1994 verdict which held a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam". The Muslim sides had contended that the previous judgement would have an adverse impact on adjudication of the matter.</p>.<p>The Hindu sides, supported by the Uttar Pradesh government, had described the plea for reference to the larger bench as a delaying tactics made to stave off the determination of the dispute.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court's Constitution bench would on Thursday take up the matter pertaining to Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute.</p>.<p>The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and also comprising Justice S A Bobde, N V Ramana, U U Lalit and D Y Chandrachud, all the four future chief justices, may determine the future course of hearing in the 70-year-long suit.</p>.<p>The bench was set up on Tuesday. Notably, the order to refer the matter to a Constitution bench was passed on administrative side by the CJI.</p>.<p>This was in contrast to the September 27 judgement by a three-judge bench presided over by then CJI Dipak Misra which by a majority view of 2:1 declined to set up a larger bench.</p>.<p>However, it is understood that the CJI exercised his administrative power as the master of roster to set up the Constitution bench.</p>.<p>It is to be seen how the parties to the dispute would respond to the decision.</p>.<p>Notably, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a recent interview, said the government would wait for the judicial process before taking any decision on the subject. Saffron organisations had repeatedly clamoured for passing a law or issuing an Ordinance to ensure construction of Ram temple in view of inordinate delay in the apex court's decision.</p>.<p>A batch of appeals have been pending before the top court against the 2010 Allahabad High Court judgement, which ordered that the 2.77 acre land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.</p>.<p>On September 27, the Supreme Court by a majority view of 2:1 rejected the demand by the Muslims side to refer the matter to a larger bench for a reconsideration of a 1994 verdict which held a "mosque is not an essential part of the practice of Islam". The Muslim sides had contended that the previous judgement would have an adverse impact on adjudication of the matter.</p>.<p>The Hindu sides, supported by the Uttar Pradesh government, had described the plea for reference to the larger bench as a delaying tactics made to stave off the determination of the dispute.</p>
