The Allahabad high court in its majority judgment in the Ayodhya case relied upon a plethora of historical and religious texts, including British Gazetteers, to establish the right of Hindus on the core portion of the disputed land on which the demolished structure stood, but found the Archaeological Survey of India report of little help.

In a major relief to Sterlite, a subsidiary of Anil Agrawal-promoted Vedanta multinational, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Madras high court order for closure of the company in Tamil Nadu for alleged violation of pollution control norms in its Tuticorin copper smelting plant.

Why has the Allahabad high court come up with a judgment of “conciliatory” nature in the highly sensitive Ayodhya case? The question has been aptly answered by it by describing the disputed land as “landmines” with serious consequences for the country and its people.

While it may take some time to go deep into the detailed reasons for arriving at the historic decision by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court in the four title suits on the Ayodhya dispute, it is clear that the judgment has struck a “conciliatory” note, and could become the guiding factor for the Centre to try for a “consensus” on accepting the findings as the judges have handed it the task of dividing the land as proposed.

With the Commonwealth Games organising committee and the Delhi government trying hard to salvage the situation following the delay in completing Games projects, the Supreme Court Wednesday took umbrage over the organisers “denting” the nation’s image.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed two petitions to defer the Ayodhya title suit ruling and cleared the decks for the Lucknow bench of the Allhahabd high court to pronounce judgment in the 60-year-old case. Soon after this, it was announced that the three-member high court bench would deliver its verdict at 3.30 pm on Thursday, September 30.

The Centre on Tuesday took a bold stand in the Supreme Court regarding its responsibility to implement the verdict in the sensitive Ayodhya title suit allaying apprehensions that the UPA government was under “stress” and wanted the deferment to continue for sometime.

As a larger Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia is set for Tuesday’s crucial hearing on whether to further defer the Allahabad high court judgment on the Ayodhya title suit, the UP Sunni Waqf Board, the main party representing Muslims, has in a petition to the Supreme Court sought immediate pronouncement, saying there was no chance of negotiations leading to a reconciliation.

The Supreme Court on Monday took serious view of the repeated adjournments sought by both the CBI and UP chief minister Mayawati in the disproportionate assets case against her during the past two years, raising doubts if there was any “collusion” between them. Reminding Ms Mayawati’s counsel and attorney-general G.E.

Chief Justice of India S.H. Kapadia has decided to head the three-judge bench that will on September 28 hear the petition for deferring the Allahabad high court judgment in the Ayodhya title suit and giving the parties a last chance for a negotiated settlement.