BJP says Amit Shah didn't speak on Ram temple
New Delhi, July 14 : The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on Saturday denied that its President Amit Shah had made any statement in a Hyderabad meeting on Ram temple in Ayodhya even as AIMIM chief Asaduddin Owaisi questioned him for speaking on the sensitive issue that is being decided by the Supreme Court.
"Yesterday in Telangana, BJP President Amit Shah did not make any statement on the issue of Ram mandir as being claimed in certain sections of the media. No such matter was even on the agenda," the BJP said in a tweet.
The Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi dispute is in the Supreme Court.
All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief Owaisi on Saturday said it was better if the Ayodhya judgment came after the 2019 general elections as it would influence the election outcome.
In a tweet he questioned Shah's speech in Hyderabad, asking him if he was "going to write the judgment when the Supreme Court is deciding the title dispute and whether Masjid is essential feature of Islam".
"It is better if the...judgment (is) given after parliamentary elections for free and fair (polls)," Owaisi said.
Shah on Friday held a meeting of party leaders in Hyderabad after which BJP National Executive member Perala Sekharjee briefed the media about it.
Quoting Shah from the meeting, Sekharjee said that steps would be taken to clear the decks for launching construction of the temple before the polls.
"Considering the developments, I believe that construction of Ram temple will begin before the coming general elections," Sekharjee quoted Shah as saying.
The BJP had also released a statement in Telegu about Shah's meeting indicating he spoke about the Ram temple issue.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Defamation complaint: You cannot be touchy in politics, says SC
New Delhi (PTI): You cannot be "touchy" in politics, the Supreme Court observed while hearing Union Minister of State for Information and Broadcasting L Murugan's plea relating to a criminal defamation proceeding initiated against him.
Murugan approached the apex court last year, challenging a September 5, 2023, Madras High Court order in which it had refused to quash the proceeding against him on a complaint filed by Chennai-based Murasoli Trust for his alleged defamatory statements during a December 2020 press conference.
While agreeing to hear his petition on September 27 last year, the top court stayed the proceeding against Murugan that was pending in a special court in Chennai.
The apex court had also sought the Trust's response on his plea challenging the high court order.
When the matter came up for hearing before a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan on Friday, the counsel appearing for Murugan said, "Where is the question of defamation in this case?"
The lawyer appearing for the Trust sought an adjournment in the matter.
"You cannot be touchy in politics," the bench observed.
"Put up after four weeks at the request of the counsel for the respondent," the apex court said.
Murugan had earlier approached the high court, challenging the proceeding initiated against him.
The high court had noted in its order that according to the Trust, Murugan made the statements "with an ulterior motive to degrade and tarnish the reputation of the Murasoli Trust in the eyes of the general public".
"While dealing with the quash petition, this court cannot go into the merits of the case or the disputed questions of fact. This court has to merely go by what is alleged in the complaint and prima facie find out as to whether the offence is made out," the high court had said.
"In an offence of defamation, the statements have to be tested only from the point of view of a common prudent man, who comes across the defamatory statements made," it had said.
While dismissing the petition, the high court had directed the trial court to dispose of the case within three months.
"It is left open to the petitioner (Murugan) to raise all the grounds before the trial court and the same will be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law," it had said.
