Thursday, 06 August 2020 - Imphal Times

IT News

Imphal, Aug 6:

After fear psychosis of people for attending hospitals amidst COVID-19 pandemic here in Imphal followed by rumors about doctor’s refusal to provide medical treatment before showing COVID-19 test report seems to be reduced in the last 2 days with the number of emergency patients at both RIMS and JNIMS along with other private hospital is on the rise. Even though there are some specific cases at which patient party claimed to have been denied admission by hospital authority, the numbers of patient attendant record at some hospital are rising.

When Imphal Times reporter visited RIMS to take stock of the situation, some non-COVID patients (emergency) were seen taken inside the emergency wards after security of the hospital conducted thermal checking of those accompanying the patient. It does not take long for the security to send the patient towards the emergency ward.

On the other hand even though emergency wards at JNIMS have been closed down for 72 hours, some exceptional emergency case has been reportedly provided medical facilities by doctors from JNIMS. Talking to Imphal Times, Medical Superintendent of JNIMS said that the emergency ward was shut for 48 hours for safety of all and has been extended for 72 hours today as ensuring safety for the people is priority for the hospital. He however said that even though the emergency ward has been closed some patient which required immediate medical attendance have been provided treatment during the treatment. So far around 4 patients in emergency need have been treated during the shutting down of the emergency wards. 

While visiting RIMS, Imphal Times reporter even though witnessed patients being allowed at emergency ward after thorough checking, many of the department non related with treatment wards were seen deserted. When contacted to RIMS authority, it is stated that the number of emergency patients provided health care services has rose double from yesterday.

“Number of heart related cases , Gynae and other patients in need of emergency attended yesterday was just 48, today till noon the number reached 72 and is expected to rise”, a RIMS authority told Imphal Times.

Patient attendance at private hospital particularly at Shija Hospital, Raj Medicity is also rising. Except a report about the demise of a pregnant lady after denial by doctors at some hospital, fear psychosis of people in attending the hospitals has been decreased.

Even though, there are reports about some doctors not accepting patients, many have actually been providing treatment to patients in needs. 

Published in News

IT News
Imphal, Aug 6:

The Manipur University of Culture (MUC) which was heralded as the platform to showcase the manipuri culture and tradition to the rest of the world in all its glory is now heading towards doom and chaos and the situation is getting grimmer with each passing day. A press release issued by the Democratic Students’ Alliance of Manipur (DESAM) stressed that the University which was promulgated by the Manipur University of Culture (MUC) Act 2015 and which started functioning in 2016 has not been able to function as a full-fledged University with proper infrastructure whether of human resources or physical infrastructure nor the required faculty despite being in operation for the last five years. There have not been any concrete steps or even arrangements to appoint a regular VC, Registrar, Examination controller, Finance Officer etc. but there has been regular instances of appointing guest faculties without proper recruitment process, the release added. According to the statement, due to the failure of the MUC to maintain the proper infrastructures and required resources, the UGC has considered withdrawing the recognition granted to the MUC in 2019, and there still is the danger of the same coming true in the future. Expressing suspicions of wrongdoings in the recruitment process for filling up the vacant posts, the statement point out that a notification for appointment of the posts of VC and Registrar was issued on May 30 of 2019, and in contradiction to the same notification, another notification was issued for appointment of VC and Registrar in 2020 by an Executive Council even after recruitment process started after the first notification. Citing various other irregularities in functioning of the MUC, the students’ body questioned the fate of the students of this institute and appealed for bringing the institute to its proper ways and declared that DESAM will henceforth take a closer look at the functioning of the MUC.

Published in News
Thursday, 06 August 2020 18:58

AIYF denounces NEP 2020

IT News
Imphal, Aug 6

All India Youth Federation (AIYF) has stated that the new National Education Policy (NEP) is against Social justice.
A statement said that the decision of the Modi Government to implement the new Education Policy is to undermine the democracy of Parliament itself.
“This NEP is against the social justice. The National Education policy is indirectly Varnshrama system of education nd will take our country hundred years back”, the statement by AIYD said adding that the three language policy adds burden to the students.
It added that imposition of any language on any ethnic people is not acceptable and denounces for promoting Sanskrit like anything in this policy.
The statement further said that public exam for the classes of 3rd , 5th and 8th will be more stressful to the students. In the name of promoting technical education, this policy is undermining the other streams like arts and literature. Virtual education system will be promoted in collaboration with foreign universities. Stressing exam for higher education is injustice to the rural students and will reduce the Gross Enrolment Ratio. The policy decisions will lead to total privatization of education which will further alienate the poor and rural students and will reduce gross enrolment ratio. There is no proper measures to impact skill based education. The government’s idea to merge institutions with less than 3000 students poses a big threat. When world is going towards specialization in education, it is foolishness to abolish single courses and promote only multi-subject institutions.
The statement said that the education is fully taken away from the state government which is anti-federal.

Published in News

IT News

Imphal, Aug 6:

Education Minister Dr. Thokchom Radheshyam today held a review meeting with the officials of Education Department to chalk out modalities and constitute a task force consisting of all core functionaries at the earliest for effective implementation of the National Education Policy, (NEP), 2020 in letter and in spirit.

Briefing about the review meeting, the Minister said that the main objective for constituting the task force is to prepare a roadmap for effective implementation of the new education policy. With the approval of the National Education Policy, (NEP), 2020 by the Union Cabinet, he said that the states have been directed for implementation of the policy. Brainstorming sessions will be held for analysing and understanding the National Education Policy, (NEP), 2020 and constitute the task force.

The task force will prepare the roadmap by identifying the challenges and concerns that may arise during the implementation of the new education policy. As such the need for translating the textbooks may be required especially for students of upto grade 5 as the learning and teaching will now be carried out through home/local language, he added.

During the meeting, Thokchom Radheshyam Singh also apprised everyone present about the Video Conference held with the Hon’ble Minister HRD on 4th August, 2020 and the necessity of working collectively and in a strategic manner for effective implementation of National Education Policy, 2020. 

Emphasizing on the need for a thorough understanding of the policy the Minister appealed to all stakeholders and solicited cooperation from all quarters particularly, Educationists, Teachers, Teachers Associations, Student bodies and all stakeholders to analyse and understand the policy so that it could be effectively implemented in the state. 

The review meeting was attended by Commissioner, University & Higher Education & SCERT, M. Harekrishna Singh; Commissioner, School Education, T. Ranjit Singh; officials concerned of the Education Department from both Schools and University & Higher Education, SCERT, COHSEM and BSEM was held at the Conference Hall, Samagra Siksha Manipur, Babupara.

Published in News

IT News

Imphal, Aug 6:

The Naga people’s mandate for a sovereign Nagaland has always been the guiding principle and the ultimate goal – a press release signed by Manwan, Education Kilonser of the NSCN/GPRN asserted today, further adding that in keeping with the glorious sacrifices of their forefathers, they have posed unflinching confidence and faith in the leadership of their President Nyemlang Konyak Naga to lead the Nagas towards the goal of sovereign political rights, and requested all to respect the decision of collectively forming a united front to defend and fight for their goal.

The release also states that the Nagas on the east side of the forcefully drawn boundary line has always shouldered responsibilities through thick and thin, and have borne the full brunt of hardships and atrocities committed by the occupational forces, yet have struggled in unison with hope and faith despite the odds stacked against them. It also placed on record that the Nagas do not identify themselves on the basis of the contentious boundary line as many Naga tribes are strewn across on either side of the unrecognised border and contends that the better conscious would not allow them to follow down the ruinous path that so many Naga leaders have fallen into; for reasons best known to them, and therefore declared that they will not follow leaders who cannot shoulder the responsibility of working for the Naga nation towards achieving the inherent sovereign political rights.

Published in News

IT News
Imphal, Aug 6:

Troops of Assam Rifles along with Manipur Police in an operation recovered a cache of weapons, ammunition and warlike stores near Kadampokpi Khunau in Imphal West District of Manipur yesterday.
Based on specific input regarding presence of cadres of proscribed outfit and concealed weapons and war like stores, the troops launched a search operation in the area. During the detailed search the team recovered one Point 22 mm Pistol, two Point 32 mm factory made Pistols with two magazines, one 12 Bore Rifle, 85 live rounds of assorted ammunition, one Chinese Hand Grenade and one radio set.
The recovered weapons, ammunition and warlike stores have been handed over to Bishnupur Police Station for further investigations.

Published in News

Novel Coronavirus- the deadly virus that brings disaster to human kind across the globe is finally pulling out the humane in every human being leaving aside some few people who believe that politics is their religion. Information gathered from internet that has been happening across the world shows thousands people extending helping hand to one another to make sure that human kind survives by defeating the dreaded virus that cause COVID-19, killing thousands of human kinds irrespective of caste, creed, rich poor. These attackers know no religions or community – they attack any human whom they can access too.
The only means, left with the human kind as of now is social distancing and total lockdown to break the chain of spreading the pandemic.
In the state of Manipur which have around 30 lakhs population (Subject to correction) from no case in March now reached over 3000. The number of death due to COVID -19 has reached 8. Saying so may have recovered and there are around 1197 active cases at which 502 are from the Central security forces.
Doctors in the state who were always criticized accusing them for all wrong reason, before the invasion of the virus, now proves that they risk their lives to save people no matter the state has poor medical equipment like PPEs. At time of crisis due to the invasion of the virus the humanity in all the medical practitioner finally showed and is notice by everyone.
It is over 5 months , that the state has been put under complete lockdown even though it was relaxed for few days. There are daily wage earner who lives on hand to mouth in the state of Manipur, but then the fortunate part is that almost all indigenous people have a place to stay. Whether they come from villages to work or to study they have place to stay indoors. The only problem is the shortage of food and other edible items due to the total lockdown. Knowing the problem it is fortunate for the state that irrespective of who is in the voter list the is trying all its best to make sure that people don’t remain hungry during the lock down. The unfortunate part is that some people still are not getting what they deserves. But leaving aside these narrow minded people, Manipur is glad to have many individuals who have distributed the essential edible item by buying from their own pocket money. CSOs, students’ bodies are trying to help people who remain hungry and provided them assistance whatever they could.
Manipur still have people (who always think of making money) at time of crisis. There are suspicion that whether the so call agents nominated by MLAs and some MLAs are taking advantage in this crisis period to make money looting the share of the people.
Remember award winning Hollywood movie - A Thousand Heroes (also known as Crash Landing: The Rescue of Flight 232) , bases on a true story of the crash landing of Flight 232 at Sioux City, Iowa on July 19, 1989. Each and every one of the citizens of Sioux City came out and help the crash victims with whatever they can. The citizens of the city is still remembers as a city of thousand heroes.
Why not Manipur be another city of thousand heroes

Published in Editorial

Chongtham Victor (Advocate).

Most people recognize that the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) is related with the criminal offences but only a few are aware that the IPC must necessarily be read along with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”). The CrPC is a rule of procedures that must be followed before, during, and after initiating a criminal complaint. 
As per the Cr.P.C there are two categories of proceedings to be followed in terms of the kind of offence that has been committed – (i) cognizable and (ii) non-cognizable.  A cognizable offence has been defined as one in which the accused may be arrested without a warrant, whereas a non-cognizable offence requires a police officer to arrest the person only after obtaining a warrant from the Magistrate. There is no straitjacket formula on how a criminal process begins. There are certain standard procedures the order of which might alter depending on the case, but the elements of a trial remain common to both kinds of cases regardless. After the trial, the judiciary then determines the liability of the different persons involved - the stage that most of us are familiar with. 
In case a non-cognizable offence has been committed, such as a case of criminal defamation, it becomes a question of filing a private criminal complaint before the Magistrate directly. If the Magistrate so desires, he may order the police to investigate if he or she finds the nature of the case to be one requiring the State’s resources. 
This largely differs from filing a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) as per Section 154 of the CrPC before a police station when a cognizable offence has been committed. For example, in case a murder/rape/kidnapping/abduction has been committed, or grievous hurt caused, the first step would be to file a FIR before the Station House Officer (hereinafter referred to as “SHO”) of the local police station within the jurisdiction/vicinity in which the crime has been committed. While this step seems rather obvious, we’ve seen in the past and continue to witness how many of these officers refuse to register FIRs and send the complainants away.
In one of the landmark case “Lalita Kumari v. State of UP” the Supreme Court had held that no preliminary investigation would be required while reporting a cognizable offence, except in certain cases such as those of medical negligence and corruption. Oftentimes, the reason provided the police officers for not taking down that FIR is that the crime was not committed within their jurisdiction. This was later resolved with the introductions of a “Zero FIR”. This mechanism allows officers to take the complaint down regardless of where it was committed and compels them to transfer it to the appropriate police station. 
When can someone be arrested?
If the officer witnesses the commission of a cognizable offence, or otherwise receives any “reasonable complaint”, or “credible information”, or has a “reasonable suspicion” against any individual of having committed a cognizable offence with imprisonment for a term of seven years or lesser, the said officer is empowered under Section 41(1)(a) or 41(1)(b) to make an arrest. In these cases, he or she can only make the arrest if they have a reason to believe that the person so arrested has committed the offence. 
As per 41(b)(ii)(a) to (e) of the CrPC, they may arrest in order to prevent the said person from tampering with any further investigation, procuring their presence for trial if they fear that they may abscond, etc. In case the crime prescribes imprisonment for a term of more than 7 years, the officer can arrest the accused as per Section 41 (ba) of the CrPC.
In some cases, the officer may find that the reasons mentioned under Section 41(1) do not apply. For instance, the person against whom the complaint has been made may not be one likely to abscond and has, for instance, cooperated with the police in previous criminal complaints. In these cases, the officer may send out a “Notice of Appearance” to the accused under Section 41A. If the person complies with the notice, he cannot be arrested unless after duly recording reasons for doing so the police officer decides to later arrest him or her. In case of non-compliance, arrest will ensue.
Section 41B talks about some indispensable rules while arresting someone. The officers must wear a visible identification of his or her name. They must then prepare a memorandum of arrest (or an arrest memo) that shall be attested by at least one witness - who is either a member of the accused’s family or locality - and must be countersigned by the accused. 
Section 46 deals with how arrests ought to be made. Sub-clause (4) was added later on and stipulates that women cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. 
Therefore, the kind of arrest that the media tends to talk about is that in case of a cognizable offence. This then raises an alarm when we study the arrest of Prashant Kanaujia, the journalist who was arrested for his tweets regarding Yogi Adityanath. The arrest was downright illegal. The police officers suo moto filed the FIR on grounds of “criminal defamation”, which is a non-cognizable offence, and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which does not apply in this case. While the initial stage of filing the complaint is not to test the veracity of these claims, filing an FIR on false grounds invokes the wrath of various other legal provisions that can be used to challenge them, such as Section 482 of the CrPC to get the FIR quashed on those very grounds. 
Rights of the Accused
The accused has the right to be informed of his or her grounds of arrest forthwith. If the arrest is made without a warrant in a bailable case, the accused has the right to be released on bail after furnishing sureties.
 The accused has a right to legal counsel. In case the person is indigent and doesn’t have the means to procure the services on his or her own, the State is bound to do so by granting legal aid. Most fundamentally, the accused is protected from ex-post facto laws, i.e. they can only be tried for breaches of laws already in place at the time of making the accusation. The law prohibits “retrospective imposition of criminality”. The right against double jeopardy protects the accused from not being convicted of the same offence more than once. This means that the same person cannot be punished based on the same facts. It does not mean that a person who murders more than one person cannot be convicted again if he commits the same crime. If the person is either convicted or acquitted of any charge, the case remains closed. It is only when fresh evidence against him or her is furnished that new set of facts is constituted. 
The accused is also protected under the right against self-incrimination which means that he cannot be compelled to be a witness in his own cause. The same is even enumerated in the Indian constitution. The right of silence and the right of privacy of the accused is yet to evolve completely in India, as we do not follow the Miranda Rights based approach as in the United States of America. 
Apart from the type of arrest contemplated under Section 41 and others, in case of a non-cognizable offence, the police can issue a “summons” to the accused to appear before them, or a court can issue a warrant of arrest to the police officer to arrest the accused. Once the arrest has been completed, or the summons been sent, or a warrant been issued, the police can search the person and/or the property of the arrested and others involved and seize any and all property that they may possess. Investigation continues and the police is empowered under Section 161 to take down statements made by witnesses. These statements are not to be recorded by the police and therefore cannot be used during trial as evidence. They are strictly stated in order to proceed with the investigation and to aid the police with the same. Even if the accused were to admit his guilt while making these statements, the law protects him or her because the statements will not be good on their own. The reason for this is that police interrogations are often not made without the threat or use of force, which may compel the witnesses to say more than they would have liked to.
What was also laid down in the case of Nandini Satpathy v. PL Dani was that the accused has no right to remain silent during these interrogations and ought to answer all of the questions fired at them. This was upheld in the case of Ajmal Kasab v. State of Maharashtra. If the police wish to use these witness statements for trial, they must get the statements recorded as per Section 164 Cr PC. This means that the witnesses will now be making their statements before the Magistrate directly, who must ensure that there is no police-person in the room while this is happening. These statements once recorded can be used during trial. All of these statements, along with the original FIR and the other documents produced throughout the investigation will eventually be filed before the Magistrate as the “chargesheet”. 
We must not forget that one of the most crucial aspects of individual liberties is to grant bail to the accused when the courts deem it fit. An individual has the right to seek bail to be released from the arrest. In India, the Bail Bond System is the default system that one can avail if they’ve committed a “bailable” offence, as per Section 436.
One may file as many bail applications as possible either before or during the trial. However, the Court decides for the very first time on whether or not to grant bail when the accused is brought before the Magistrate under Section 56 and Section 57 of the Code immediately after the arrest. Article 22(3) of the Constitution of India mandates that the accused arrested be brought before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his or her arrest – another indispensable human right.  
In case the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, he or she is still eligible under Section 437 of the CrPC to receive bail. In theory, a court must not consider whether or not to grant bail based on the past history of the accused or the seriousness of the crime. Bail can be granted so long as the court is certain that the person released will not abscond, comply with the notices served to him or her, not repeat any offence or tamper with evidence if released, and not threaten or intimidate other witnesses of the case. However, the Code itself mentions gravity and past conduct as grounds for not granting bail, which flies in the face of justice and curtails individual freedoms based on pre-conceived notions. Section 437(2) of the CrPC permits the court to grant bail in a case where they have reason to believe that the person did not commit the offence, but still need to probe into his or her guilt. The CrPC also allows a person to seek “Anticipatory Bail” under Section 438, wherein a person can seek protection from arrest even prior to it on grounds mentioned in the code.   The violation of rights of the citizens since been rampant at the hands of the investigating Authority/Police by making unwarranted arrest of him/them compelled me to write this for the purpose of providing awareness amongst the public.

Published in Guest Column

By: Mamta Lukram

Few days back, a collage picture of a young lady and a new born was posted sharing a disheartening update on how the young lady passed away during the child’s delivery. More disturbing was the content which indicates a sense of stigmatisation, discontentment over public attitude of overlooking fact that the virus has no borders. Having a flashback reality check, everyone knows that Thoubal district has been put under stringent restriction with fear of becoming the hot bed of COVID 19 local transmission in the state. A disastrous community response of districtphobia or Thoubalphobia brewed in the minds as side effect.
Nevertheless, during this hard times of global crisis whereby doctors and health workers frontlining in strategic combat against the disease, misunderstandings their constraints thereby blaming them from all angles may not be the right step. Interaction with the bereaved family members reveals a different layout. We need introspecting causal factors by enquiring into if the system has any direct and indirect role.
Digging deep, some specific factors are found responsible for the unfortunate incident. The confirmation of COVID 19 positive cases with no travel history and imposition of complete curfew in the district only, restricting public movement created hardships. Social dejection by people from other parts of the state restraining people from this district entering public and private places in other parts is another factor. The psychological insecurity bears its alarming significance too.
The heart wrenching story is about Thoudam Malemnganbi @ Abem, 24 years, W/O Thoudam Sanjitkumar 33yrs from Thoubal Thoudam Mamang Leikai, ward no 3/14, who unfortunately passed away on Sunday, 2nd August 2020 in her child delivery. According to family member, Malemnganbi used to have regular check-ups in the district hospital during the last past months. She was also private patient of a doctor posted in Thoubal District Hospital. She already had a six years old son through normal delivery and everything have been running quite normal for her.
Catastrophe spelt in her life when doctors 3 doctors and a grade IV posted in Thoubal District Hospital were confirmed COVID 19 positive leading to sealing of the hospital. Rejecting treatment of people from Thoubal District in other hospitals, without COVID 19 test results multiplies inconveniences. Erecting barricades with bamboo fences blocking people from any other district, Thoubal in particular was the greatest mental and mobility set back to the family.
By the time her due dates was approaching, her family failed to maintain smooth communication with the concern doctor. Fixed in chaos, the family tried to contact a hospital which didn’t turn up with recommendable solution. Being caught in a choiceless dilemma, the family was reduced to a state of helplessness. The only hope was, as the lady gave normal delivery to her first son who is now six years old, and her concerned doctor was of the view that everything was normal, there is high probability of successful normal delivery for this second time too. So, the family started looking for options.
Relying on traditional practice was the idea open to them. As shared by the family, they were little hopeful getting the information that after COVID 19 lockdown has destroyed normalcy, few others family have also successfully relied on traditional midwiferies. So, when Malemnganbi started experiencing her natural labour contraction, she was fed to traditional midwifery. Luckily by 8.40 am in the morning of Sunday, 2nd August 2020, she delivered a baby boy and the condition was stable. The family rejoiced and breathe of sigh with the successful step. The whole family have been busy with post-delivery initiatives and preparing food for her, suddenly she started showing signs of discomfort. She was attended by nurse, but her health lapses into critical juncture due to complicacies of internal bleeding. Within no time she succumbed. The ill-fated family was left behind in a shock.
Later, the child seems to develop some discomfort, the panic stricken family come out looking for medical assistance, which rather was more disheartening even. They went out for Shija Hospital which demanded test result or either a note confirming test has been conducted. This made them waited outside the CMO office Thoubal with the motherless new-born for hours in vain. They took up the courage and managed to get in through Shija Hospital. The hospital staffs, keeping under consideration the situation, contacted a paediatrics over the phone and the doctor gave telephonic instructions in responding the need of the infant. Finally, the family members reached home late evening after having tested nagative for COVID 19 in Thoubal district hospital.
As expressed by the family member, COVID 19 has havoc their family. They don’t hold anyone in particular as responsible for the loss in the family, but the pandemic. They were of the view that it was neither out of carelessness nor financial constraint that the unfortunate mother was made to deliver her baby at home, but out of endless confusions that stuck them in every step. They resign to their fate, however are disheartened with the system of disarray submerging in endless confusion the lives of common people.

Published in Guest Column
Thursday, 06 August 2020 18:51

Ram Temple- the history is “rewritten”

The history was re—written nearly after 500 years, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi performed a bhumi pujan (ground breaking) and laid 9 bricks for the proposed Ram Temple in Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh on Wednesday, 5 August 2020. 
The dispute is nearly 500 year old ever since a mosque was constructed by the Mughals by demolishing the Ram Temple that existed in Ayodhya and is regarded as a birth place of Lord Ram..
The time line of the longest even dispute runs as: 1520-Mughal king Babar’s lieutenant Mir Banki constructed a mosque by demolishing the Ram Temple. 1813- Hindu organizations alleged that the mosque was constructed by demolishing the Ram temple.
1853- The first communal riot breaks out in Ayodhya over the temple issue. 1859- The then British administration put a fence encircling the disputed site. The Muslims were allowed to offer namaz inside the fence, while the Hindus were permitted to offer prayers at Ram Chabutara outside the fence. 1885- Mahant Raghuvar Das filed a complaint before Faizabad sub-divisional magistrate seeking permission to construct the temple at disputed site. The court rejected the demand.
1949- On 23 December 1949, the idols of Ram and Laxman were found on the site and Hindu organizations claimed that it was reincarnation of Lord Ram. However supporters of Mosque refuted the claim saying the idols were placed during night by some Hindu activists. Eventually the mosque was locked and the site was declared as “disputed site”. 1950-On 16 January 1950, Gopalsingh Visharad filed a complaint in the Fauzabad Civil Court seeking permission to offer puja at the site. The court granted the permission. However the Muslims objected to the permission given by the court.
1984- Vishwa Hindu Parishad(VHP) forms a committee to set up the Ram temple at the site. 1986-On first February 1986, the Faizabad court granted the permission to the VHP to open the lock and offer prayers. However the Muslims opposed the decision and formed the Babri Masjid Action Committee, to oppose the move.
1989- Former Prime Minister late Rajiv Gandhi permitted the Shila Nyas (stone laying), near the disputed site. 1990- Senior BJP leader L K Advani undertook a Padyatra across the country. The yatra was stopped and Advani was arrested in Bihar. Late V P Singh was heading the coalition government at the centre that time. Eventually BJP withdrew its support and the V P Singh government was toppled.
1991-BJP came to power in Uttar Pradesh. The movements to send bricks for Ram temple began. 1992- The Kar Seveks and others demolished the disputed mosque and set up a small temple at the site on 6 December 1992. The communal riots erupted in different parts of the country, including Mumbai. Over 2000 were killed in the riots. The then PM late R V Narsimha Rao appealed to Muslims community to maintain calm. On 16 December 1992, the Commission headed by former Justice M S Librahan Commission was set up to inquire into the demolition.
1994- The case was transferred to Allahabad High court. 2001- On 04 May 2001, the Special CBO court dropped the charges of conspiracy against Shiv Sena Chief late Balasaheb Thackeray, BJP leaders-L K Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharati and 13 others.
2002-The Ayodhya department was set up on 01 January 2002 by the then PM late Atal Behari Vajpayee to resolve the dispute. On 01 April 2002, a three member bench of the Allahabad High Court began hearing of the case. The Hindu activists returning from Ayodhya by the Sabarmati Express train were attacked near Godhra (Gujarat) on 27 February 2002. In all 58 persons were killed in the incident. In the riots that erupted after the incident, over 2000 people were killed in Gujarat.
2003-The Archaeological Survey of India in its report submitted to Allahabad High Court on 22 August 2003, stated that the remains of temple dating back to 10 th century were found below the mosque. But the All India Muslin Personal Law Board raised objection to the claim. 2003- Seven leaders responsible for the demolition of the mosque were asked to be present in the court.
2009- The Libarhan Commission submitted its report to the then PM Dr Manmohan Singh nearly after 17 years. 2010- On 26 July 2010, a divisional bench of the Allahabad High Court reserved its verdict and asked the parties involved to settle the dispute amicably. On 28 September 2010, the Supreme Court rejected the petition demanding that the Allahabad High Court be restrained from delivering the judgement. On 30 September 2010, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the land at disputed site be apportioned between Ram Mandir Nyan, Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Aghada.
2011- On 9 May 2011, the Supreme Court stayed the judgement of the Allahabad High Court. 2017-On 19 April 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the criminal charges be filed against L K Advani and others. On 09 November 2017, Waseem Rizvi, a Shia Muslim leader and four-time chairman of the Shia Central Board of Waqf in Uttar Pradesh,  after meeting with UP Chief minister Yogi Adityanath suggested that the Ram Temple be constructed at proposed site for the Ram temple and the land for the mosque be allotted away from the temple. 16 November 2017- Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, chief of the Art of Living tried to mediate between disputed parties. On 05 December 2017, the Supreme Court ordered disputed parties to clear their stand by 4 February 2018.
2018-Sunni Waqf Board on 08 February 2018 requested that the matter be heard on day to day basis by the Supreme Court. However the plea was rejected. On 14 March 2018, Advocate Rajiv Dhavan filed an appeal on behalf of the Sunni Waqd Board, saying that the judgement delivered in response to a petition filed by Ismail Farukhi and others (in1994) be sent to the constitutional bench for further hearing.  The SC during hearing on 20 July 2018, reserved the judgement. On 27 September 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the demand to reconsider the matter saying the mosque is not inseparable part of Islam. On 12 November,2018 the SC rejected a petition filed by Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha, requesting for speedy hearing of the matter.
2019-On 08 January 2019, a five member bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was set up to hear the appeals against the judgement of the Allahabad High Court delivered in September 2010. The bench comprised, Justices S A Bobde, N V Ramanna, U V Lalit and D Y Chandrachud. On 10 January, Justice Lalit recused himself from the case. On 25 January the bench was reconstituted with inclusion of Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Jamir. On 08 March, a Dispute Redressal Committee was appointed under chairmanship of former SC Judge F M I Kalifulla. He submitted his report on First August 2019 in a sealed envelope. However since he was unable to resolve the dispute amicably, the SC began a day to day hearing from 06 August 2019 onwards. The SC completed the hearing and reserved the judgement on 16 October 2019.   
On 09 November 2019, the SC in the final  judgement,  ordered  the Government of India to create a trust to build the Ram Mandir temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternate 5 acres of land to the Sunni Waqf Board for the purpose of building a mosque.

Published in Articles

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.