Drama in SC over sending temple suit to larger Bench

The Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute case witnessed high drama in the Supreme Court on Friday after the Muslim side said why the dispute cannot be referred to a Constitution Bench just like it was done in the cases of polygamy and nikah halala.

Appearing for the original plaintiff to the suit Mohammad Siddiq, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan asked a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra to clarify whether in the court’s view the title suit case was “trivial” or the issue of polygamy was more important. His comments stirred up a commotion as lawyers appearing for the opposite side objected to such arguments being made in the highest court.

“This court referred the polygamy case to a Constitution Bench on March 26 looking into the importance of the issue. I want the people of India to know and the Press to know if polygamy is much more important than this case. This is the most important issue facing Indian secularism today far more than polygamy,” Dhavan said.

According to Dhavan, the title dispute case required consideration by a five-judge Bench as it involved interpretation and validity of another five-judge Bench decision in Ismail Farooqui case where it was held that praying at a mosque is not an essential practice of Muslim religion.

The Bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer said, “We are in the process of hearing your arguments on the Ismail Farooqui case. If you convince us that what is stated in that judgment is not constitutionally correct, we will be obliged to send it to a five-judge Bench.”

The court found support from senior advocate K Parasaran who appeared for the deity Ram Lalla.

The veteran lawyer said, “Court is to decide on the basis of the Constitution. At each point, counsel cannot say nation wants to know this and then demand an answer. This amounts to intimidating the court. The Bench should proceed with the hearing.”

Dhavan felt slighted by this remark and said that the senior lawyer had no business to “caricature” his arguments as non-serious. “I am within my rights as a counsel to demand that if the court has used the principle of importance of a case to refer one issue directed against Muslim community to a larger bench, why this case seems so trivial. I have to be frank with the court and so the Bench must tell me if polygamy is more important than this case.”

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta intervened and said such arguments amount to vitiating the environment. Dhavan, earlier during the proceedings referred to the law officers as “hoodlums” and dismissed his submission as rubbish. This forced another senior lawyer CS Vaidyanathan appearing for the Hindu parties to the dispute to intervene. “The highest court has never witnessed such scenes and this language is defamatory. The court must not allow this to happen,” he said. After almost an hour, order was restored as the Bench convinced Dhavan that the decision to send the title suit case to a larger Bench is not shut and all arguments will be considered finally to determine this question. The arguments by Dhavan will continue on April 27.