New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear a plea by RSS ideologue Govindacharya on September 16 seeking live streaming or audio recording of the ongoing Ayodhya hearing relating to the ownership of disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site.
At the outset of the hearing of the Ayodhya matter by five-judge constitution bench, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi told senior counsel Vikas Singh that the constitution bench can’t be broken to hear the plea for the live streaming of the Ayodhya proceedings and they have decided in the chamber to hear the matter on September 16.
The matter was listed before a bench headed by CJI Gogoi in the wake of an order passed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, saying that the matter is listed before a bench hearing Ayodhya case.
“We feel that this petition should be moved before the very Bench which is hearing the matter. Place the petition before the Bench presided over by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India on September 11”, said the order passed by a bench of Justice Nariman and Justice Surya Kant on September 6, 2019.
A five judge constitution bench, headed by CJI Gogoi also comprising Justice S.A.Bobde, Justice D.Y.Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer is hearing a batch of cross petition challenging September 30, 2010, Allahabad High Court verdict on the disputed Ram Janmabhomi-Babri Masjid site.
The High Court by the said verdict had divided the disputed site, giving two parts to Hindu litigants and one part to Muslim litigants.
The top court by its September 26, 2018, judgment, had accepted the plea for live streaming of the court proceedings involving matter of Constitutional and national importance, having an impact on the public at large or on a large number of people.
The “comprehensive guidelines for live streaming of Court proceedings” suggested by the Attorney General K.K.Venugopal and accepted by the top court says that the permission of the concerned Court for the live streaming of the proceedings of a case would have to be sought “in writing, in advance, in conformity with the prescribed procedure.”
However, the court had said that the discretion to grant or refuse permission would be subject to “unanimous consent of the parties involved” in the case before the court.
