Ayodhya Ram Mandir Issue: The Supreme Court had last year refused to expedite the hearing (File Photo)
The title suit in the Ayodhya case, pending for six decades with a huge controversy for the past two decades, will come up in the Supreme Court today. A Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, is expected to form a three-judge bench to fix a date for the hearing. The ruling BJP and right-wing groups wanted the legal aspects of the issue to be ironed out and the temple construction to begin before the general elections are announced. The Supreme Court had last year refused to expedite the hearing, however, triggering the demand for an ordinance by the centre.
Chief Justice Gogoi, who was heading the bench, clarified the appeals would come up before a bench "not for hearing but for fixing the date of hearing".
Despite pressure from right-wing groups, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said in his New Year interview, that the government will decide on the issue after the judicial process is over. "After the judicial process is over, whatever be our responsibility as government, we are ready to make all efforts," said PM Modi.
Here are the Highlights on the Supreme Court hearing over the Ayodhya Case:
"It is to be seen as to how the new bench will respond to the matter, particularly about the request for a day-to-day hearing and an early disposal of the appeals," Mr Kumar said.
"The VHP continues to be of the firm opinion that a legislation by Parliament is an expeditious way of resolving the disputes and would urge the central government to bring in such legislation within its term," he said.
A legislation by Parliament is an expeditious way of resolving the dispute, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) reiterated on Friday, after the Supreme Court said an appropriate bench constituted by it will pass an order on January 10 for fixing the date of hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute title case.
VHP working president Alok Kumar asked the Centre to bring a legislation before the end of its term. He said it would have been better if the bench for hearing the Ram Janmabhoomi appeals had been constituted before the last hearing, which was held on October 29, 2018
Ayodhya Case: Smriti Irani slams Congress for "creating hurdle" in judicial process
Union Minister Smriti Irani Friday blamed the Congress for "creating hurdle" in the judicial process in the Ram temple case through its lawyers and said 'Ram Bhakts' should ask the party about it, according to news agency Press Trust of India.
"Congress should not do politics through its lawyers on Ram temple issue, which is matter of faith of people. It's leaders, as lawyers, are creating hurdle in the court. People and Ram bhakts should ask the party whether its leader wore 'janeu' only for polls of three states," she said, according to PTI.
Her reference was to senior Congress leader and lawyer Kapil Sibal, who sought deferment of hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute till after the 2019 general elections.
Ayodhya Case in Supreme Court: Supreme Court says appropriate bench will fix date of hearing
Supreme Court says appropriate bench will fix date of hearing in Ayodhya land dispute case on January 10, according to news agency Press Trust of India
Ayodhya Case: Supreme Court will fix date of hearings on the Ayodhya case on January 10
The Supreme Court will fix date of hearings on the Ayodhya case on January 10.
Ayodhya Case in Supreme Court: 2-judge bench to schedule hearings in the Ayodhya title dispute case 
Read Here: Supreme Court To Decide Date Of Ayodhya Case Hearing Today: 10 PointsThe title suit in the Ayodhya case - pending for six decades and the centre of a huge political controversy for more than two -- will come up at the Supreme Court today. A bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is expected to form a three-judge bench, which will fix the date for the hearing. The ruling BJP and the right-wing groups wanted the legal issue to be sorted and the temple construction to begin before the general elections are announced. But last year, the court refused to expedite the hearing, triggering a demand for an ordinance or executive order by the government.