- READ LATER
No mosque in India is safe: Advocate tells Supreme Court in Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid case
HIGHLIGHTS
- Dhavan appears for Mohammed Siddiqui, the main petitioner in the title suit.
- The SC is hearing cross-appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court's ruling.
- HC ruled that 2.77-acre land of Ayodhya be devided into three parts.

HIGHLIGHTS
- Dhavan appears for Mohammed Siddiqui, the main petitioner in the title suit.
- The SC is hearing cross-appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court's ruling.
- HC ruled that 2.77-acre land of Ayodhya be devided into three parts.
No mosque in this country is safe and can be demolished like Babri Masjid if the view that mosques are not an integral part of Islam and Muslims can pray anywhere is upheld, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan argued in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid case before the Supreme Court on Friday.
Dhavan appears for Mohammed Siddiqui, the main petitioner in the title suit. "There is fear that if the argument that mosques are not essential part of worship is upheld, what happened to Babri Masjid might happen to any mosque in the country," Dhavan argued.
He added, If the government wants, in national interest, they can acquire the land but till then it remains a place of worship for Muslims.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra is first deciding if the Ayodhya title suit should be referred to a larger Constitution bench. This was after Dhawan referred to a five-judge bench decision in a 1994 Ayodhya land acquisition case that mosques are not integral part of Islam.
"Yes. That comment will have a huge bearing in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit," Dhavan said after which the bench said first it will hear arguments on whether the case should be referred to a larger Constitution bench.
"That judgment said a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open. We know what Indians do in the open. It sounds like how people in India go to bathroom," Dhavan said.
What is interesting is that Dhavan had not raised the comments in the other case on the last date of hearing though he had cited it in the last date of hearing and sought reference to a larger bench.
On March 14, Justice Ashok Bhushan had himself pointed out the request made earlier made by Dhavan and said the issue was worth considering.
The SC is hearing cross-appeals against the 2010 Allahabad High Court ruling that the 2.77-acre land of Ayodhya be divided into three parts, with one-third going to Ram Lalla, represented by Hindu Mahasabha; a third to Sunni Waqf Board; and the remaining to Hindu religious denomination Nirmohi Akhara.
Also watch | 25 years after Babri Masjid demolition, Ayodhya still battles for development