#AyodhyaHearing Apprehensions about adjournment have come true: Vishva Hindu Parishad

The VHP today criticised the adjournment of the hearing in the Ayodhya case in the Supreme Court. In a statement issued by Adv Alok Kumar, International Working President, VHP, the organisation said, ?An adjournment from 10 January to 29 January is rather long.?

Published by

Archive Manager

Jan 10, 2019, 01:32 pm IST

“Justice Lalit has never appeared in the Ram Janmabhoomi matters; neither at the trial stage nor in the appeal”

The VHP today criticised the adjournment of the hearing in the Ayodhya case in the Supreme Court. In a statement issued by Adv Alok Kumar, International Working President, VHP, the organisation said, “An adjournment from 10 January to 29 January is rather long.”

“Under the circumstances, an adjournment from 10 January to 29 January is rather long. Hindus are known for their patience and forbearance. The judicial system still has the responsibility of deciding the matters without undue delays. The country hopes that the Hon’ble Chief Justice, heading the present Bench shall decisively act to prevent the delaying tactics of the opposite party,” the statement said.

“The other objection on Justice U U Lalit being on the bench is painful. Justice Lalit has never appeared in the Ram Janmabhoomi matters; neither at the trial stage nor in the appeal. His being Counsel of Shri Kalyan Singh in 1997 in the contempt matter casts no shadow on his hearing the present appeals. The objections were merely ploys to delay further,” Adv Alok Kumar said in a statement.

The VHP also condemned the comments of two members of the Muslim Personal Law Board about the absence of any Muslim Judge. Terming it disappointing, the VHP said, “It would be a very sad day when the judges would be assigned to hear matters on the basis of their religion.”

The Press Statement Issued by Shri Alok Kumar, Advocate, Working President, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP)

The hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi Appeals has been adjourned – yet once again.

Our apprehensions that the opposite party shall raise any frivolous issues to secure an adjournment have come true.

The objection that a judicial order should have been passed for the constitution of a five judge bench is apparently frivolous; for it is settled that the Hon’ble Chief Justice is the master of roster. He alone decides the strength of a bench and the judges to sit in it.

The other objection on Justice U U Lalit being on the bench is painful. Justice Lalit has never appeared in the Ram Janmabhoomi matters; neither at the trial stage nor in the appeal. His being Counsel of Shri Kalyan Singh in 1997 in the contempt matter casts no shadow on his hearing the present appeals. The objections were merely ploys to delay further.

Under the circumstances, an adjournment from 10 January to 29 January is rather long. Hindus are known for their patience and forbearance. The judicial system still has the responsibility of deciding the matters without undue delays. The country hopes that the Hon’ble Chief Justice, heading the present Bench shall decisively act to prevent the delaying tactics of the opposite party.

We have seen the objections by two members of Muslim Personal Law Board about the absence of any Muslim Judge on the bench is disturbing. It would be a very sad day when the judges would be assigned to hear matters on the basis of their religion. In this case, the bench had been constituted with rational criteria i.e. the Judges who would become Chief Justice of Supreme Court during their tenure. The attempt of forum shopping is to be condemned.