SC to consider administrative side on live-streaming Ayodhya case
   Date :06-Aug-2019

FORMER BJP leader and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) ideologue K. N. Govindacharya on Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking urgent hearing on plea for live-streaming of the upcoming day-to-day proceedings in the Ayodhya case. A bench comprising Justices S.A. Bobde and B.R. Gavai, however, refused to pass urgent order on his plea but assured him that the matter will be considered on the administrative side. The bench, however, refused to give urgent hearing on the matter, saying it would require institutional decision and deliberation.
Appearing for Govindacharya, senior advocate Vikas Singh submitted that as there is a time constraint, and that if live-streaming is difficult, then recording of the proceeding may be taken up while a decision on transmission or live-streaming can be taken up later. Govindacharya on Saturday moved the Supreme Court seeking live-streaming of the upcoming day-to-day proceedings in the Ayodhya case. In his plea, Govindacharya has cited the Supreme Court’s September 2018 judgement that ruled that SC proceedings must be live-streamed. Gupta said the ruling came on a petition moved by the Centre for Accountability and Systemic Change (CASC).
According to the petition, despite over a year later, the SC ruling was yet to be implemented. Govindacharya in his petition said: “This case is a matter of national importance. There are crores of persons, including the petitioner, who want to witness the court proceedings, but cannot due to the present norms in the Supreme Court.” He said the people were desperate for early justice in the Ram temple matter as the Lord Ram idol had been kept for years in a makeshift tent in Ayodhya.
“This matter has been pending in the Supreme Court for the last nine years, and the public at large is interested in knowing the reasons behind the delay in deciding the cases,” the petitioner said. On December 6, 1992, the Babri Masjid, constructed at the disputed site in the 16th century by Shia Muslim Mir Baqi, was demolished. The Central Government had on January 29 moved the apex court seeking its nod to return the 67-acre undisputed acquired land around the disputed site to original owners. The Centre claimed that only 0.313 acre of land was disputed on which the structure stood before it was demolished by ‘kar sevaks’ on December 6, 1992.
A week later, another petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the 1993 central law on land acquisition in Ayodhya near the disputed site, contending that Parliament has no legislative competence to acquire land belonging to the State. Seven individuals, including two Lucknow-based lawyers claiming to be devotees of Ram Lalla, said state legislature has exclusive power to make provisions on management of religious affairs inside its territory. The plea said the Acquisition of Certain Areas of Ayodhya Act, 1993, infringes the right to religion of Hindus guaranteed and protected by Article 25 of the Constitution.