Ram Mandir case: Temple proponents trying to pre-judge dispute, says lawyer Rajeev Dhavan

NEW DELHI: The Muslim parties to the Ayodhya land dispute on Tuesday accused Hindu outfits of pre-judging the outcome of the litigation in the Supreme Court and said it amounted to contempt of court.

Appearing before a bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, their lawyer Rajeev Dhavan said, "When this case is being argued in the SC, all sides must exercise self-restraint. While the Muslim side has exercised total restraint, some Hindu parties are trying to vitiate the atmosphere by pre-judging the outcome. It is impermissible and amounts to contempt of court. I will caution all of us not to muddy the waters."

Sticking to his demand for reference of the dispute to a five-judge constitution bench, the constitutional expert said the 24-year-old Ismail Faruqui judgment, upholding the Centre's decision to acquire the 2.77 acres of disputed land and 67 acres around it after Babri Masjid was demolished in 1992, had done the damage by ruling that "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 the open".

He said this remarkof the constitution bench was aggravated by another unnecessary observation in the judgment which said, "While offer of prayer or worship is a religious practice, its offering at every location where such prayers can be offered would not be an essential or integral part of such religious practice unless the place has a particular significance for that religion so as to form an essential or integral part thereof."

Dhavan said this comparative analysis of what was important for Muslims and Hindus was not in sync with 'secularism'. He said the right to offer prayer was protected under the fundamental rights and even the SC could not have said that one community's right was more integral to the religion while the other's was not.

"Those who demolished Babri Masjid were pure and simple criminals. No religion can be attached to them as their act cannot be taken as one sanctioned by their religion to attach stigma to it," Dhavan said.

He said the unnecessary remarks on mosque and namaz in Ismail Faruqui judgment required review by a larger bench as the Allahabad High Court relied strongly on this controversial observations in the fivejudge bench judgment to deliver a verdict dividing the 2.77 acre Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land into three equal parts - one part to deity Ram Lalla, second to Nirmohi Akhara and third to Sunni Waqf Board.

Dhavan referred to the recent controversy where Muslims were stopped from offering prayers on roads and open spaces in Gurgaon.

Countering Dhavan, former attorney general K Parasaran said the Muslim parties could not pick and choose from Ismail Faruqui judgment to seek reference to a larger bench.