New Delhi: Amidst ruckus created by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan on whether the “Ayodhya dispute” is less important than “polygamy”, the Supreme Court agreed to examine whether the entire Ayodhya title dispute can be sent to the Constitution Bench.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, also made it clear to Dhavan that it will decide whether to send the matter to the larger bench only after hearing all parties to the litigation.
“We will not restrict the scope of arguments only to reconsideration of 1994 verdict. You (Dhavan) can argue for referring the entire title suit to a constitution bench,” the bench told Dhavan. Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer are the other judges in the bench.
At the outset, Dhavan, appearing for main petitioner M. Siddiq, referred to a recent order passed for referring “polygamy” issue to a Constitution Bench of five judges and asked the court whether Ayodhya dispute is less important than polygamy for not referring to five judges.
“People of India want to know whether polygamy is more important than Ayodhya dispute. This court must answer now. Ayodhya case is not being dealt with the importance it deserves,” Dhavan told the court. He repeatedly said and urged the CJI to refer this matter to a constitution bench now itself.
Senior counsels K. Parasaran and C.S. Vaidyanathan strongly opposed the words used by Dhavan, insinuating senior lawyers present in the court and Soli Sorabjee, who is not present.
Objecting to Dhavan’s submissions, Parasran told the court, “What sort of argument is this? Nation wants to know and Supreme Court must answer. You ( Dhavan) are not alone who is representing the nation. We (petitioners representing Hindus) are also representing the nation. When one is asking for a reconsideration of the 1994 verdict it has to be examined. As far as we are concerned, the verdict did not require reconsideration. Further no review can be permitted after 25 years.”
Parasaran added that it was not proper to compare “polygamy” case with Ayodhya dispute. Last year when triple talaq was decided by the Constitution bench, this issue was left open and for this reason only polygamy was referred to five judges. But here we are dealing with a case, which is already decided, and he is seeking reconsideration.
Additional solicitors general Maninder Singh and Tushar Mehta also objected to Dhavan using unparliamentary and disparaging remarks against senior lawyers and urged the court not to allow the counsel to do so.
When Dhavan said he cannot argue the same issue now and repeat the same before the Constitution Bench later, Justice Ashok Bhushan reminded the counsel that there is some procedure in this court which must be followed. He asked the counsel “how can you say that I will not argue before you and I will argue only before the Constitution bench before we decide whether reference is required or not.”
CJI told Dhavan “whether to refer to a larger bench or not we have to hear all parties and decide. We will hear on all aspects, first, we will put this controversy (on 1994 verdict) to rest. We may take a decision to refer the entire 1994 judgment to a larger bench as well as the title dispute itself.”
Dhavan asked the CJI “If the court has one criteria, viz importance of an issue to be referred to the constitution, why not same criteria for this (Ayodhya) issue. This (Ayodhya) is the most important issue facing the Indian secularism, than polygamy. I am asking this with serious anguish. Tell whether polygamy or secularism is important. Let this court openly say that this matter is not sufficiently important than polygamy.
Dhavan’s objection was that during the last hearing the apex court had said that before deciding the Ayodhya title dispute, it will examine as a
preliminary issue’ whether the 1994 ruling, viz “a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Namaz. (Prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open” requires to be revisited by a five judge Constitution bench.status quo’ on installation of Ram Idol in the disputed site, recognised Hindus right to worship at that place but completely ignored the rights of Muslims to offer namaz in the Babri Masjid. The observation that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Namaz. (Prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open, required to be revisited as the Allahabad High Court while deciding the title suit in 2010 had apportioned one third of the land to Hindus, one third to Muslims and one third to Ram Lulla relying on the status quo order of 1994. He will continue his arguments on April 27.
The CJI had then made it clear to . Dhavan “if we agree with your propositions, we will refer the legal principles to be considered afresh by a five judge bench. If we don’t agree with your argument and come to the conclusion that the 1994 observations were made in the context of acquisition of land in Ayodhya, we may not refer it.”
Dhavan pointed out that the 1994 verdict ordering
Special judge seeks 6 months time from SC to conclude trial
New Delhi: A special judge holding trial in Babri Masjid demolition case, involving BJP veterans L K Advani, M M Joshi and others, Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking six more months to conclude the trial in the case.
The special judge, in a letter written in May, has informed the top court that he is due to superannuate on September 30, 2019. The matter came up for hearing on Monday before a bench headed by Justice R F Nariman, which asked the Uttar Pradesh government to apprise it by July 19 about a mechanism by which the tenure of the special judge could be extended till he delivered the verdict in the high profile case.
On April 19, 2017, the top court had ordered day-to-day trial to be concluded in two years in the case.
‘Won’t meet Kharge, Azad…’: Karnataka MLAs write to Mumbai police
Bengaluru: The 14 rebel Karnataka MLAs, staying in Mumbai’s luxury hotel, have written to state police over an alleged ‘threat’ from senior Karnataka and Maharashtra Congress leaders, including Mallikarjun Kharge and Ghulam Nabi Azad.
“We’ve absolutely no intentions in meeting Mallikarjun Kharge, GN Azad or any Congress dignitaries from Maharashtra and Karnataka or any political leader as we anticipate serious threat from them,” MLAs wrote to senior police inspector, Mumbai’s Powai Police Station, according to ANI.
The rebels have been rebuffing efforts by the leaders of Karnataka’s JD(S)-Congress combine to reach out to them in a an effort to find a solution to the crisis triggered by the MLAs resigning on July 6 and then going incommunicado.
The coalition government, which has been wobbly since it came into being last year, is facing a serious crisis now with 16 MLAs – 13 of the Congress and three of the JD(S) – resigning from their Assembly membership.
Seeking protection, the rebel MLAs urged the police officer to make necessary arrangements to ensure that the leaders are not allowed to meet them.
“We the respected Members of Karnataka Assembly are currently staying at Renaissance Hotel Powai, would like to inform you that we have absolutely no intentions in meeting Shri Mallikarjun Kharge ji or Ghulam Nabi Azad ji or any Congress dignitaries or functionaries from Maharashtra and Karnataka Congress team leaders or any other political leaders. We anticipate serious threat from them. We hereby request you to kindly make necessary arrangements to stop these people from meeting us in case the situation arises,” the letter read.
Among the legislators who signed the letter are Shivram Hebbar, B.C. Patil, Mahesh K, Vishwanath, Muniratnam, Narayan Gowda, R Shankar, H Nagesh, Pratap Patil, Gopalaiah, Ramesh J, MTB Nagraj, Somshekar and Basavaraja.
Earlier last week, the rebel MLAs stonewalled Congress leader DK Shivakumar’s attempts to meet them. He was kept waiting for 5 hours outside the hotel and eventually detained by the Mumbai police.
On July 11, the dissident MLAs had returned to the hotel here after meeting Karnataka Assembly Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in Bengaluru.
The development came after the Supreme Court had directed them to meet the Speaker and resubmit their resignations afresh. The top court had on July 12 ordered a status quo until July 16 on a plea filed by 10 dissident MLAs of Congress and JD(S) seeking a direction to the Assembly Speaker to accept their resignation and not proceed with the applications for their disqualification.
Cleric beaten up in Baghpat for not chanting ‘Jai Sri Ram’
New Delhi: A cleric in Baghpat has alleged that he was assaulted by a group of youth as he refused to chant ‘Jai Sri Ram’. According to the cleric, he was on his way to his home on a motorcycle when he was stopped by the miscreants.
The youth allegedly asked the cleric, Imlaur Rehman, to chant ‘Jai Sri Ram’, but when he refused to do the same, they started beating him up mercilessly. The cleric alleged that they even took off his skull cap and tried to pull his beard.
No one came to his rescue despite his cry for help. He somehow managed to escape the spot and reached to the police for help. The cops have initiated an inquiry into the case.
“I was going on my motorcycle when 10-12 people in a vehicle apprehended my bike. They asked me to chant ‘Jai Sri Ram’ and when I failed to comply, they started beating me up. They were carrying sharp weapons,” said the cleric.
“I ran to save my life and sought help from passers-by, but no one came to help me. There was no one at the police station when I reached there. Then I called my friend who helped me get in touch with concerned officials,” he added.
When his family members were informed about the incident, they reacted in anger and claimed that a handful of people were trying to disrupt communal harmony in the area. They said that strict action must be taken against such people.
Speaking to Zee News, the cleric’s brother called for action against the miscreants to forced him to chant ‘Jai Sri Ram’ and assaulted him. He further said that if justice was not delivered, they would ensured that a decision was taken at the panchayat level.
The police said that a case had been registered against 10-12 unidentified accused. The incident occurred between 5 and 5.30 pm on Sunday at a distance of 200 metres from Saror police station.