The Supreme Court on Friday concluded arguments on the question of referring the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute to a Constitution Bench. The Muslim sides had argued that the matter was of great significance with vital bearing on the social fabric of the country and hence it should be referred to a Constitution Bench. The SC posted the matter for hearing on May 15.
Appearing for the Muslim factions, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said there have been instances in the past when the SC referred cases to a Constitution Bench on the basis of the importance. During the last hearing, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who too appeared for the Muslim sides, asked the court if issues such as nikaah halala and polygamy could be sent to Constitution Bench, then why not the present title suit case.
As Dhavan was absent on Friday, Ramachandran took over the arguments by submitting that the suit in question concerns the two major religions of the country, which have fought since the middle of 19th century to establish right over the property in question at Ayodhya.
Moreover, since a three-judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court had decided this dispute, in the first appeal the apex court will be the final arbiter to decide the case both on facts and law, and hence the need for hearing by a five-judge Bench.
Hindu parties represented by senior advocate K Parasaran and Harish Salve urged the court not to be influenced by such emotional and religious sensitivities and to be guided solely by evidence on record as the case pertained to a property dispute. Since the demolition of Babri mosque in 1992, Salve said that the country has moved on and there is no place for such religious and emotional arguments while deciding a suit between two parties.
Parasaran felt that a decision passed by a three-judge Bench of High Court ought to be heard by a three-judge Bench of the SC. Since the present composition of the Bench hearing the matter is of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, he submitted there was no need to refer the matter to a five-judge Bench.
The Bench posted the matter for hearing on May 15 for Dhavan to complete arguments. Dhavan has sought reconsideration of the 1994 Ismail Farooqui judgement which was relied in deciding the title suit case. The said decision held that praying in mosque is not an essential part of the Muslim faith.