The Muslim and Hindu parties to the Ram Janmbhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit dispute sparred in the Supreme Court on Tuesday with the former claiming that it was “contemptuous” on part of persons belonging to Hindu faction to claim they would go to Parliament and seek a law on construction of Ram Temple when the matter is sub-judice before the Court.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan who appeared for the original litigant Mohammad Siddiq told a Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer that some leaders have publicly stated they would go to Parliament to ensure construction of Ram Temple. This amounted to pressurising the Court, he said.
Proceeding with his arguments on referring the title suit dispute to a Constitution Bench, he was stopped by senior advocate K Parasaran appearing for the Hindu deity Ram lalla. Parasaran argued that since Dhavan’s client is the original litigant who took part in the proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, he was precluded from demanding the case to be referred to a Constitution Bench. Further, he submitted that only a question of law can be referred to a Constitution Bench and this case as such should be treated as a property dispute between two private parties.
Dhavan said that the question whether mosque is integral to Muslim faith must be decided and for this reason he sought reconsideration of the 1994 decision in Ismail Farooqui case which laid this foundation. This concept, according to him, has gone into the reasoning behind the decision of the HC in the Ayodhya title suit dispute. Dhavan wondered that on one hand, mosques are found to be not integral to practice of Islam and on the other hand, in Haryana Muslims are being told by the administration to offer ‘namaz’ in mosques and not on roads.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on May 17 when Parasaran will argue on the necessity of referring the case to a larger Bench.