After hearing the Ayodhya case, there was a heated debate in the court

0
227
SC Says: Special Courts should set up trying lawmakers from this date

New Delhi. After hearing the Ayodhya case, there was a heated debate in the court. The trial of the Ayodhya case began on Friday in the Supreme Court. During this, there was an overwhelming debate among lawyers who argued for their parties. As the situation reached here, Mike had to resort to the judge to bring his voice to them. In fact, the UP government and Ramlala Sarkar were demanding early hearing from the court, while the opposition lawyers argued that the matter is not yet ready so there should not be any immediate hearing.

After hearing the Ayodhya case, there was a heated debate in the court

The trial began on Friday in a scathing court for the Ayodhya case. The hearing of the case was about to begin at two o’clock, but the court had already completed one and a half. Why not? The trial of Hindustan’s longest and most controversial case was to be held. At just two o’clock, Justice Deepak Mishra, Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazir reached the court. First, the UP government lawyer ASG Tushar Mehta placed his plea in front of the court.

He urged the court that the court should give the date of the hearing soon. Apart from this, an appeal has also been made to hear before the High Court’s decision against the petitions filed. Ramlal’s lawyer, CS Vaidyanathan, also supported Tushar Mehta’s plea. But lawyers of the Sunni Central Waqf Board, Muhammad Hashim and Nirmohi Akhada protested against the hearing of the case, saying that all the documents have not been translated so that there should not be any early hearing.

Anoop George Chowdhury, Kapil Sibal and Rajiv Dhawan, lawyers of Sunni Central Waqf Board, say that documents of the case are in eight languages ​​including Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu, Pali, Persian, Gurmukhi. On this, Vaidyanathan advised Tushar Mehta, the document which the parties are referring to should only translate it and present it in the court. The court suggested the legality of Vaidyanathan, but Chaudhary was concerned that the question of the opposition’s advocate could be questioned.

On this, the court said that if this happens, we can send the translation to the experts. On this, the court asked about the time taken in the translation of the document, and for four weeks, Sunni Central Waqf was asked for four months time. While the Nirmohi Akhada’s lawyer said that he can not tell by just estimating it. Later, the court gave 12 weeks to translate the documentary. During this, the lawyers of both the sides had to resort to Justice Mike in front of Justice Ashok Bhushan, when the voices of the lawyers were high.

Read Also: Boys from all over the world love girls like this

Follow Us On Facebook & Twitter.