The Supreme Court, today, declined the request of K N Govindacharya for audio and video recording or live streaming of the case that began in the morning, saying, “it is not currently feasible.”
Nirmohi Akhara, one of the parties in the politically sensitive case of the Ayodhya land dispute, told the Supreme Court today that no Muslims were allowed to enter the structure since 1934 and it has been in exclusive possession of the Akhara.
A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, was told by senior advocate Sushil Jain, appearing for Nirmohi Akhara, that it was seeking management and possession of the area. The Akhara counsel told the court that its suit was basically for belongings, possession and management rights.
“I am a registered body. My suit is basically for belongings, possession and management rights,” said the Akhara counsel. He also told the court that the Akhara was in possession of the inner courtyard and Ram Janmasthan for hundreds of years.
“We were in possession of inner courtyard and Ram Janmasthan for hundreds of years. Outer courtyard having ‘Sita Rasoi’, ‘Chabutra’, ‘Bhandar Grah’ were in our possession and it was never a part of dispute in any case,” the senior counsel told the bench.
The bench, also comprising Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer is conducting day-to-day hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case in Ayodhya after the efforts to arrive at an amicable settlement through mediation have failed.
It had on August 2 taken note of the report of the three-member mediation panel, headed by former apex court judge FMI Kalifulla, that the mediation proceedings, which went on for about four months, have not resulted in any final settlement.
The mediation panel, also comprising spiritual guru and founder of the Art of Living foundation Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and senior advocate and renowned mediator Sriram Panchu, had said in its report submitted on Thursday that the Hindu and the Muslim parties have not been able to find a solution to the vexatious dispute.