SC refuses to defer Ayodhya case

The hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit case started on a tumultuous note in the Supreme Court on Tuesday amid strong resistance put up by the Sunni Central Wakf Board and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind against expeditious proceedings. Their counsel

also created a flutter in the court by questioning the haste with which the SC is trying to conclude the politically-sensitive case. The court adjourned the hearing till February 8 next year.

The Sunni Central Wakf Board, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, and private persons supporting the claim of Sunni Muslims to the disputed land in question at Ayodhya tried every trick in the book to ensure that the hearing in the matter does not proceed.

As the case involved translation and filing of close to 90,590 documents, the Wakf Board claimed that in the five suits under hearing, several documents and pleadings still remained to be filed or tendered to the other side.

This was staunchly opposed by the lawyers representing Lord Ram Lalla and Hindu groups, who came prepared for the hearing claiming all documents were in order.

Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Rajiv Dhavan, who appeared for Hashim Ali and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind respectively, submitted that the hearing cannot take place before pleadings in the case are complete. The Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer felt that adjourning the case on such technical reasons was not correct as the other side was prepared to present its case.

Sibal dropped a bombshell by saying, “This matter cannot be heard till July 2019.” He was obviously pointing to the period by when the next Lok Sabha elections will take place. Giving reasons, Sibal said, “A promise is made by this Government at Centre in its 2014 election manifesto to build Ram Temple at the disputed site. Why should we fall into this trap? Why in such circumstances, should this court agree to hear the matter to get it decided before 2019?”

Dhavan said the matter involved a question of religion and faith and required elaborate submissions that will not complete within a year. Requesting the court to consider sending the case to a five-judge or seven-judge Bench, he added, “It will not finish until October,” in an indication to the CJI who will retire around that time next year.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, who appeared for a Muslim faction, said the objection on hearing the case had to do with the “objectionable manner” by which the case was listed out of turn at the instance of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, not a party to the suit.

As the court allowed the other side to begin arguments, Sibal, Dhavan and Dave together began leaving the courtroom in protest claiming that the case was not ripe for hearing as pleadings were not complete. The Bench did not permit them to leave and directed hearing of the case on February 8. By that date, both parties to the suit were directed to file a common memorandum that the case is ready for hearing.

Senior advocate Harish Salve appearing for Gopal Visharad stepped to the court’s defence and wondered if the SC should ever be bothered by the consequences of a case. The only question to be answered by a three-judge Bench is whether the Allahabad HC judgment of September 30, 2010, dividing the property into three parts --- Sunni Wakf, Ram Lalla, and Nirmohi Akhara --- is correct or not. There can be no hurry on part of the court to decide a seven-year old appeal, Salve said, urging the court to treat the case as any other case sitting in a three-judge combination.

Whether the matter should be referred to a larger SC Bench can be addressed at a later stage, senior advocate K Parasaran added. He is leading the arguments for Lord Ram Lalla.

Sibal said, “This is not an ordinary suit…this is something that goes to the heart of secular fabric of the country. Perhaps it’s the most important case that will impact the country’s future considering its serious ramifications. It is our request that the matter be sent to a Bench of minimum five judges.”

The SC told Sibal, “You are going back on your submission made on the last date of hearing. You had requested for a hearing in January and now you are seeking to list after July 2019. You are making this a non-serious case with your arguments.”

As the court allowed the other side to begin arguments, Sibal, Dhavan and Dave together began leaving the courtroom in protest claiming that the case was not ripe for hearing as pleadings were not complete. The Bench did not permit them to leave and directed hearing of the case on February 8. By that date, both parties to the suit were directed to file a common memorandum that the case is ready for hearing.