Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<ul><li><keyword id="435174" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Nirmohi-Akhara">Nirmohi Akhara</keyword>, a sect of bairagis or monks who sought seeking management of the land --- say that the land itself is a manifestation of God.</li><li>The court allowed Nirmohi Akhara to be a part of the trust which will now hold the land to build the temple, but denied them management of the land.</li><li>The judgment set a precedence saying that while a piece of land which is of religious significance – is not enough to stake claim on land.</li></ul> In its judgment that went over a 1,000 pages, the Supreme Court avoided a litany of possible land claims by religious entities. The order is significant in a country where Gods can manifest themselves from thin air on trees, lands and anthills and molehills, which later turn into mountains. The court rejected the Nirmohi Akhara’s suit but has allowed the government to decide if the Akhara should be given adequate representation in the trust that will manage the upcoming temple for Lord Rama. Nirmohi Akhara⁠— a sect of bairagis or monks who sought seeking management of the disputed site in Ayodhya⁠— claimed that the land itself is a manifestation of God. The sect claims to have run the Ram temple for years before the erection of the <keyword id="43572" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> in the 16th century. “Recognising the land as a self-manifested deity would open the floodgates for parties to contend that ordinary land which was witness to some event of religious significance associated with the human incarnation of a deity is in fact a Swayambhu deity manifested in the form of land,” the judgment said. The Sanskrit term Swayambhu means the naturally occuring manifestation of a deity, as opposed to a man-made one. In India, deities, rivers, animals etc. can be accepted as juristic entities i.e. they can pay taxes, hold property, sue, and be sued. The argument presented by the K Parasaran, the counsel for Nirmohi Akhara, was ‘novel extension’ of the idea, the verdict said even as it rejected it. While the Supreme Court did not set any limits to what a deity must look like⁠— and did not rule out that a land can be considered a deity⁠— the bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the religious significance was not enough to claim a piece of land. “At best, the contention urged on behalf of the plaintiffs would sustain a claim that the specific site is a location of religious significance for the devotees. It cannot however be extended to sustain proprietary claims to the law or to immunise the land from proprietary or title,” the judgement said. SEE ALSO <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-ram-mandir-case-supreme-court-verdict-top-highlights/articleshow/71979856.cms">Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict </a>

Supreme Court ensured Ayodhya verdict can’t be used to take over land just by citing faith

<ul><li>Governor Vajubhai Vala has given fresh deadline till 6 pm for HDK to prove majority. </li><li>Karnataka assembly has resumed after it was adjourned till 3 pm. </li><li>BJP President says that the trust vote might not be held today. </li><li>Karnataka legislative assembly is continuously being adjourned amid BJP’s demand for trust vote. </li><li>Karnataka CM HD Kumaraswamy said that he will move to the Supreme Court against the Governor’s order. </li></ul>The governor of Karnataka gave a fresh deadline to the ruling government to prove it majority by 6 pm. The CM H D Kumaraswamy has been exhaustively delaying the process, hanging on to power. BJP President Siddaramaiah had earlier said that the trust vote probably won’t be held today. The assembly has resumed after it was adjourned till 3 pm, with no progress on the much awaited trust vote. Kumaraswamy said today that he will move to the Supreme Court against the vote. Governor Vala had earlier directed the Speaker to hold the trust vote by 1:30 pm today. Also, the Congress state President was seen heading to the Supreme Court, possibly delaying it further. Kumaraswamy said, “It (trust vote) is crucial and cannot be completed by 1:30 pm. This needs to be discussed.” The opposition, BJP, has been alleging that the ruling party is delaying it, as it does not have the requisite majority. They had also staged an overnight protest by ‘sleeping’ in the Assembly. Governor is interfering: Cong JD(S) spokesman Ramesh Babu said that the CM’s counsel will move the Supreme Court today for a stay on the Governor's Thursday’s order asking him to prove majority by the deadline. “The Governor is interfering in the workings of the Legislative Assembly, which is the domain of the Speaker under the provisions of the Constitution,” Babu said. Congress-JD(S) alliance is to petition on the basis that CM Kumaraswamy had moved the confidence motion in the house on Thursday and the debate had started and so setting a deadline should be stayed by the court. In the meanwhile, one of the Congress MLAs Shreemant Patil is admitted in a hospital in Mumbai, after he complained of chest pains. Yesterday, Congress alleged that BJP has kidnapped them. Delayed Trust The trust vote which was supposed to happen yesterday, was relentlessly delayed by the ruling Congress-JD(S) coalition which might be facing an end of its run. Kumaraswamy will have to prove that his government has majority to carry on, as MLAs have been leaving his fold. BJP party members had staged an overnight dharna or protest over the delay of trust vote. Accusations, speeches and allegations between both Congress and BJP managed to delay the vote, yesterday. Finally, the state’s Governor wrote a letter to CM Kumaraswamy regarding the trust vote after senior BJP MLAs met him at the Raj Bhawan. The case of a kidnapped legislator Yesterday, the Speaker had refused to conduct the trust vote amid allegations by the Congress against the BJP for kidnapping its MLA Shreemant Patil, who had decided to take his resignation back. Speaker Ramesh Kumar had asked home minister MB Patil to give a detailed report of Shreemant after talking to his family. The Speaker said that he had received a letter in this regard named in Patil’s name, saying he would abstain from coming to the house due to health related issues. However, the Speaker asked the present Home Minister of Karnataka, MB Patil to contact Shreemath Pati’s family and give a detailed report by tomorrow. “What kind of a Speaker would I be if I proceed with a document which has no date or letterhead,” said K R Ramesh Kumar. The house was disrupted throughout the day on the issue of trust vote and when it was finally adjourned till today, BJP announced a night long strike in the assembly itself till the voting was not done. “We are demanding voting on the motion but the chief minister is reluctant to take it up as he has confirmed himself that he has lost confidence of the House and the people. Everybody knows Congress-JD(S) coalition has only 98 MLAs, we have 105,” said B S Yeddyurappa, BJP party president. Crisis mode The Karnataka state government went into a crisis mode earlier this month, after 16 of its MLAs from both the parties of the coalition government resigned. For the last two weeks, the political crisis in the state raged on, as Speaker of the Assembly refused to accept them, taking them to court. One of the rebel MLAs, Roshan Baig was also detained at Bengaluru airport and questioned, as he was stopped from taking a chartered flight, a few days back.

Karnataka Governor sets another deadline at 6 pm for Kumaraswamy to prove majority

More than a century-old religious dispute⁠— the first case was filed in 1885⁠— became a land title suit is awaiting the final word from India’s Supreme Court, which is expected to give its verdict in the Ram Temple-Babri Masjid (mosque) dispute in <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> very soon. The Hindu sides contend there should be a temple for Lord Rama in the 2.7 acre land because one was destroyed for construction of the <keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword> in the 16th century. The dispute continued escalating until December 6, 1992 when the mosque was demolished by those who wanted a temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. 
 <div type="Youtube" id="-tpuk6l1GVE" title="What is the Ayodhya Dispute?" thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-tpuk6l1GVE/mqdefault.jpg"></div>



 The Allahabad High Court divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary), and the Sunni Waqf Board. The appeals at the Supreme Court are against this verdict and the contentions of all 50 parties to the case can be subsumed in the claims of the three primary parties to the case who got parts of the land in the High Court case. Ram Lalla Virajman Interestingly, the reference to Ram Lalla Virajman is to the deity of Lord Rama, represented by a human, legally called ‘next friend’, Trilok Nath Pandey, a member of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. Both in India and the UK courts, there are legal precedents that have accepted deities as juristic entities in the past. The primary claims of Ram Lalla are as follows: <ul><li>Decree of declaration stating that the entire site (building and adjacent area) belongs to the deity.</li><li>Perpetual injunction against the defendants, prohibiting them from interfering in any manner in the construction of a new temple under the trusteeship of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas.</li><li>The representative of Ram Lalla is opposed to the division of the land title as it holds that the deity is indivisible.</li></ul>Nirmohi Akhara The Nirmohi Akhara is a math (a monastery) for ascetic devotees of Lord Rama. The Akhara claims to be existence since at least 1400 AD, according to some accounts, and that it has been managing the temple much before the construction of the mosque. With the current appeal at the Supreme Court, the Akhara wants the management and control of the temple back in its hands. For that, the Court has to first agree that a temple can be built there. The Akhara only came into the national spotlight in 1959 when it moved the court against the transfer of control of the disputed site to the state government. That 1959 lawsuit was borne out of incident on December 22, 1949 when a set of Hindu idols were placed under the dome of the Babri Masjid. But the Akhara has claimed that those idols were always there. <ul><li>stay the operation of the High Court's judgment that granted the three-domed structure to the Sunni Waqf Board and Shri Ram Virajman</li><li>Allow pooja (worships and rituals) of Lord Rama at the site and bar anyone from removing the deities as directed by the Supreme Court in the 1993 judgement.</li></ul>Gopal Singh Visharad Gopal Singh Visharad is an individual who moved the Faizabad court in 1950 demanding his right to worship at the disputed site saying his ancestors had been doing so before the mosque was established. Later that year, another appellant, Paramhans Ram Chandra Das, filed a suit seeking permission for "worship and darshan without any check, obstruction or interference". The Faizabad civil judge consolidated the suits filed by Visharad and Das and in the final verdict handed the disputed site over to the state government, which is when the Nirmohi Akhara jumped into the court battle demanding rights over the land. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs A Waqf is a body recognized by Muslim Law, the Sharia, which owns and manages properties donated for a religious purpose. They are regulated earlier under the Waqf Act of 1954, and now under the Waqf Act of 1995, approved by the Indian Parliament. In the Ayodhya dispute, the Sunni Waqf Board has spearheaded the claims of the Muslim community from 1961, after the state government had seized control through the Faizabad court verdict. The Board wanted control over the mosque and the removal of the idols inside. The consolidation of the three cases⁠— Visharad, Das, and the Sunni Waqf Board⁠— became the main case in 1964. After the demolition of the Babri Masjid by kar sevaks, members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, in 1992, the Waqf Board sought to get the mosque restored. After 2010, the Board appealed at the Supreme Court against the division of the disputed site into three parts by the Allahabad High Court. Shia WAQF Board Interestingly, despite being a Muslim organisation, the Shia Waqf Board (representing a sect) has supported the cause for a temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya and sought that the Muslim parties should give up their claim. The Shia Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board. Babur, who is said to have built the mosque in the disputed site, was from the Shia sect among Muslims. The Shia Waqf Board has appealed that the Supreme Court must hand over the part of land that was given to the Sunni Waqf Board, by the Allahabad High Court verdict, to the Hindu parties. In return, the Shia Waqf Board has demanded that the Babri Masjid must be rebuilt in another site. See also: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/a-curious-rift-emerges-in-sunni-waqf-board-a-party-to-ayodhya-case-ahead-of-a-verdict/articleshow/71681803.cms">A curious rift emerges in Sunni Waqf Board-a party to Ayodhya case-ahead of a verdict</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/ayodhya-issue-days-ahead-of-a-verdict-muslim-parties-refuse-mediation-and-settlement/articleshow/71646131.cms">Ayodhya issue: Days ahead of a verdict, Muslim parties refuse mediation and settlement</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/lawyer-tears-up-pictoral-map-as-courtroom-drama-peaks-on-the-last-day-of-ayodhya-arguments/articleshow/71613741.cms">Lawyer tears up pictoral map as courtroom drama peaks on the last day of Ayodhya arguments</a>

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

As the 44-day funding-raising <keyword id="6359590" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Campaign">campaign</keyword> for the <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword>'s <keyword id="2186945" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ram-temple-construction">Ram Temple construction</keyword> came to an end on Saturday, the Trust associated with the drive said that they have collected over ₹2,100 crore. Prior to the crowdfunding campaign launch on January 15, the Trust had projected an estimate of ₹1,100 crore for the Ram temple complex construction, but it received more than ₹1,000 crore over projection. Shri <keyword id="81812" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ram-janambhoomi">Ram Janambhoomi</keyword> Teerth Kshetra Trust treasurer, Govind Dev Giri, told reporters, "The funds-raising campaign has ended with generous contributions from all cross-sections of the people, including residents of far-flung villages of India, blurring religious barriers. Total donations received has crossed ₹2,100 crore by Saturday evening." Giri had pegged the construction cost of the temple at ₹300-400 crore, while making an estimate of ₹1,100 crore for building the entire complex on Ram Janambhoomi in December last year. Ayodhya seers have now advised the temple trust to use the surplus <keyword id="6354840" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="money">money</keyword> for development of Ayodhya and warned against misuse of the money donated by crores of <keyword id="2623428" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ram-bhakts">Ram Bhakts</keyword>. However, Anil Misra, member of the Trust said, "The budget for building the temple complex is not final and this will be known only after the construction is complete." Swami Paramhans Acharya, of Tapasvi Chhavni said, "The Trust should use additional funds to set up a Sanskrit University in Ayodhya in the name of Mata Sita and establish a gaushala for free supply of milk in the temple town." Mahant Dhinendra Das of Nirmohi Akhara, said that "the money was donated by millions of Indians in the name of Lord Ram and the excess money should be used for the welfare of Ayodhya and its temples". Hanuman Garhi temple priest, Mahant Raju Das, said the money could be used to revamp dilapidated temples in Ayodhya. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/bharat-bandh-over-eight-crore-traders-across-india-shut-shop-in-protest-against-rising-fuel-prices-and-changes-in-gst-rules/articleshow/81223361.cms">Bharat Bandh – over eight crore traders across India shut shop in protest against rising fuel prices and changes in GST rules</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/finance/banks/news/ignore-low-cibil-score-for-street-vendor-loans-work-on-holidays-and-other-diktats-from-indian-government-to-banks-rushing-to-meet-march-target/articleshow/81223572.cms">EXCLUSIVE: Ignore low CIBIL score for street vendor loans, work on holidays, and other diktats from Indian government to banks rushing to meet March target</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/india-now-allows-you-to-avail-a-discount-on-flight-ticket-if-you-are-not-carrying-a-check-in-baggage/articleshow/81225977.cms">India now allows you to avail a discount on flight ticket if you are not carrying a check-in baggage</a>

Ayodhya's Ram Temple collects nearly ₹2,100 crore funds for its construction, says associated Trust

<ul><li>Give Muslims another site for a mosque, the Supreme Court ordered quashing the division of land by the Allahabad High Court.</li><li>This is a historic judgement from the Supreme Court in the Ram Mandir (temple) - Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute being fought in courts at least since 1885.</li><li>The central government has been vested with the disputed land and to come up with a scheme for the construction of a temple in Ayodhya.</li><li>The Muslims should be given a separate 5-acre site for the construction of a mosque, the SC ordered while calling the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law.</li></ul>In a historic verdict, the Supreme Court of India has ordered that Muslims be given a separate 5-acre site to build a mosque, while holding the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 as against the law. At the same time, Justice Gogoi, while reading out a unanimous verdict, ordered that the Hindus will get to construct a Ram Mandir (temple) at the disputed site in Ayodhya, which the Hindus believe is the birthplace of Lord Rama. The Constitution bench of Supreme Court of India comprising of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Sharad Arvind Bobde, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Ashok Bhushan, and Justice Abdul Nazeer read out a unanimous verdict in the Ram Mandir (temple)- Babri Masjid (mosque) title dispute that has lasted for centuries, and being fought in the courts since 1885. The verdict is expected to settle the issue that has shaped India's politics for nearly 30 years now. <div type="Youtube" id="YB8rCj6W2ks" title="Here are the top highlights from the Ayodhya verdict." thumbUrl="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/YB8rCj6W2ks/mqdefault.jpg"></div>

 These are the key highlights of the order being read out: 1. Hindus get the possession of the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram temple. Possession of disputed 2.77 acre land will remain with Central government receiver. SC asks centre to frame scheme within 3 months and set up a trust for construction of a temple. 2. Alternate land should be allotted to the Muslims for a mosque. The Allahabad High Court was wrong in dividing the disputed Ayodhya site into three parts. 3. The government has to set up a trust that will enforce the Court's judgement. 4. Ram Janmabhoomi (birthplace of Lord Rama) is not a juristic person and therefore filed by Nirmohi Akhara is barred by limitation. However, the Akhara that has sought the management rights to the temple may get adequate representation going forward, if the government deems fit. 5. The report from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), which cited the presence of a tenth-century structure beneath the Babri Masjid, has been upheld. But the court highlighted the fact that ASI refrained from recording a finding on whether mosque was built after demolishing a Hindu temple. As it stood at the Supreme Court, there are 50 parties in the case but the broad issue is whether there should be a temple or a mosque in the disputed site or should the land be divided among the sparring parties as ruled by the Allahabad High Court in 2010. Today, the Supreme Court has quashed the Allahabad High Court verdict, which divided the Ayodhya title into three equal parts between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram-- the deity represented by Triloki Nath Pandey (an RSS volunteer and Vishva Hindu Parishad functionary)-- and the Sunni Waqf Board. All three parties moved the Supreme Court against the order. Reaction of the Muslim side The Muslim side has expressed its displeasure with the Supreme Court verdict. While they agree with the parts of the verdict, they disagree with the handing over of the disputed site to the Hindus. Zafaryab Jilani, a litigant from the Muslim side, representing the Sunni Waqf Board, said that the verdict is "neither justice nor equity". "We are not satisfied with the judgement and the court has reached some wrong conclusions. We will go through the judgement to decide the future course of action... but SC verdict has to be respected. Everyone must remain calm," Jilani said adding that they are yet to decide whether they will move a review petition. SEE ALSO: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/people-prepare-for-supreme-court-verdict-in-the-ayodhya-case-in-pictures/articleshow/71979301.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">See how India tried to keep calm ahead of the historic Supreme Court verdict in the Ayodhya case</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/news/why-the-supreme-court-verdict-on-the-ayodhya-dispute-is-being-delivered-on-a-saturday/articleshow/71979382.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Here's why the Supreme Court verdict on the Ayodhya dispute is being delivered on a Saturday</a> <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/india/news/supreme-court-verdict-on-ayodhya-legal-rights-of-lord-rama-and-other-gods/articleshow/71948927.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">In India, Gods, rivers, and animals can pay taxes, hold property, sue, and get sued⁠— and that’s an important factor in the Ayodhya case</a>

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made it clear that it will conclude today the day-to-day hearing in the politically sensitive Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case at <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword>, saying "enough is enough". A 5-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said that it is hearing the Ayodhya land dispute case for the last 39 days and no more time beyond today will be granted to parties to conclude the hearing in the case. "This matter is going to be finished today by 5 PM. Enough is enough," the bench, which also comprises justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, said at the start of the proceedings on the 40th day. The apex court had earlier said the hearing would be concluded on October 17. Now deadline has been advanced by one more day. The CJI is demitting office on November 17. The bench also rejected a plea of a party seeking to intervene in the ongoing hearing and said no such interventions will be allowed now at this stage of proceedings. Senior advocate C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for a Hindu party, has commenced his submission in response to a lawsuit filed by Sunni Waqf board in 1961 seeking title claim over the 2.77 acre disputed land at Ayodhya. Fourteen appeals have been filed in the apex court against the 2010 <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword> judgment, delivered in four civil suits, that the 2.77-acre land in Ayodhya be partitioned equally among three parties -- the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

Enough is enough, says Supreme court Chief Justice on Ayodhya--wants to end arguments today

A Waqf is a body recognized by Muslim Law, the Sharia, which owns and manages properties donated for a religious purpose. They are regulated earlier under the Waqf Act of 1954, and now under the Waqf Act of 1995, approved by the Indian Parliament. <keyword id="1037861" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Waqf-Boards">Waqf Boards</keyword> have perpetual succession and they have power to acquire and hold property. In the <keyword id="6354931" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ayodhya">Ayodhya</keyword> title dispute⁠— Ram temple versus Babri Masjid⁠— there are two Waqf Boards involved. One of them represents the Sunni sect and the other represents the Shia sect. The Sunni Waqf Board has spearheaded the claims of the Muslim community’s appeal from 1960s. In 1961, the state government had seized control of the disputed site through the Faizabad court verdict. The Sunni Waqf Board wanted control over the mosque and the removal of the idols inside, which were reportedly placed under the mosque’s dome in on December 22, 1949. The <keyword id="48834" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Allahabad-High-Court">Allahabad High Court</keyword> ordered in 2010 that the disputed land should be divided into three parts and one part should go to the Sunni Waqf Board⁠— the other two parts must go to the Hindu sides represented by Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla Virajman (the deity). But the Waqf Board wants the entire land and the mosque to be restored as it was before its demolition in 1992. Shia vs Sunni The Shia Waqf Board has claimed ownership of the disputed land, not the Sunni Waqf Board. Babur, who is said to have built a mosque in the disputed site, was from the Shia sect among Muslims. However, the Shia WAQF Board has supported the construction of Ram temple at the site where the mosque (<keyword id="43572" type="LOCATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Babri-Masjid">Babri Masjid</keyword>) stood earlier. In return, the Shia Waqf Board has demanded that the government must give an alternative site for the mosque construction.

You Searched For "Nirmohi Akhara" and got 7 results

Supreme Court ensured Ayodhya verdict can’t be used to take over land just by citing faith

Katya Naidu

Karnataka Governor sets another deadline at 6 pm for Kumaraswamy to prove majority

BI India Bureau

The Ayodhya case has 50 parties⁠— but you need to know only these 7 claims

BI India Bureau

Ayodhya's Ram Temple collects nearly ₹2,100 crore funds for its construction, says associated Trust

IANS

Hindus get the disputed site in Ayodhya for a Ram Temple-- that and other top highlights from the Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

Enough is enough, says Supreme court Chief Justice on Ayodhya--wants to end arguments today

PTI

The Waqf Boards and their stance on the Ayodhya dispute awaiting Supreme Court verdict

BI India Bureau

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides