Live
- NASA Tracks Five Giant Asteroids on Close Approach to Earth Today
- Pushpa 2 Hits ₹1000 Crore in 6 Days: How It Compares to Other Top Indian Films
- Vivo X200 and X200 Pro Launched in India: Price, Specifications, and Features
- Nitin Gadkari Admits Feeling Embarrassed at Global Summits Over Rising Road Accidents in India
- Comprehensive Review on Indiramma Housing Survey and Welfare Initiatives Conducted via Video Conference
- Jogulamba Temple Records Rs 1.06 Crore Hundi Revenue in 150 Days
- Opposition Slams ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill as Anti-Democratic; BJP Allies Support the Move
- Celebrate Karthigai Maha Deepam Virtually with Sri Mandir’s LIVE Darshan Experience
- BJP Extends Support to Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Employees' Strike, Demands Immediate Regularization and Welfare Benefits
- Dr. M. Priyanka Stresses Quality Education, Nutritious Meals, and Cleanliness in Schools
Supreme Court to hear Ram temple plea
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to intervene in pending matters relating to the Ayodhya title dispute with his plea seeking the construction of a Ram temple at the site of the disputed demolished structure.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday allowed BJP leader Subramanian Swamy to intervene in pending matters relating to the Ayodhya title dispute with his plea seeking the construction of a Ram temple at the site of the disputed demolished structure.
A bench of Justices V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra, while tagging Swamy’s fresh plea with pending civil appeals, said that it cannot separately hear the petition seeking direction to allow construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya at the site where the disputed structure was demolished in 1992, as a matter of fundamental right.
Swamy argued that the Government had already given an affidavit that it would pave the way for the construction of the temple if there was evidence and moreover, that there were findings of Archaeological Survey of India to that effect.
At the outset, the bench said that it could not entertain the “writ petition” when the civil appeals were still pending before it and that Swamy should either move the High Court for enforcement of his fundamental rights, or seek impleadment as a party in the pending civil appeals here.
