<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed contempt proceedings against the Uttar Pradesh government in the 1992 Babri Mosque demolition case, saying in view of the 2019 judgement in the Ayodhya case, the issue no longer survived.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and Vikram Nath said there was no point in whipping the dead horse as a Constitution bench had already pronounced the judgement and much time has also elapsed. </p>.<p>The court, however, agreed that the matter should have come up for hearing earlier.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Bhure had himself died in 2010. His counsel M M Kashyap asked the court to substitute the petitioner with an amicus curiae. However, the court rejected the request.</p>.<p>On November 9, 2019, a five-judge Constitution bench decided the title dispute in Ayodhya case to the Hindu side for construction of Ram temple and alternate five acres to Muslims for building a mosque.</p>.<p>Advocate M M Kashyap, appearing for the petitioner, said the order passed by the apex court in 1992 was violated and after that, the contempt petition was filed. </p>.<p>He said nearly 30 years have gone by and the petitioner had filed several applications for listing of the matter. </p>.<p>"We appreciate your concern. But, now nothing survives in this matter. You cannot keep whipping a dead horse. It was unfortunate that the matter was not taken up," the bench said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed contempt proceedings against the Uttar Pradesh government in the 1992 Babri Mosque demolition case, saying in view of the 2019 judgement in the Ayodhya case, the issue no longer survived.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S Oka and Vikram Nath said there was no point in whipping the dead horse as a Constitution bench had already pronounced the judgement and much time has also elapsed. </p>.<p>The court, however, agreed that the matter should have come up for hearing earlier.</p>.<p>The petitioner, Bhure had himself died in 2010. His counsel M M Kashyap asked the court to substitute the petitioner with an amicus curiae. However, the court rejected the request.</p>.<p>On November 9, 2019, a five-judge Constitution bench decided the title dispute in Ayodhya case to the Hindu side for construction of Ram temple and alternate five acres to Muslims for building a mosque.</p>.<p>Advocate M M Kashyap, appearing for the petitioner, said the order passed by the apex court in 1992 was violated and after that, the contempt petition was filed. </p>.<p>He said nearly 30 years have gone by and the petitioner had filed several applications for listing of the matter. </p>.<p>"We appreciate your concern. But, now nothing survives in this matter. You cannot keep whipping a dead horse. It was unfortunate that the matter was not taken up," the bench said.</p>
