The Supreme Court on Tuesday was told that the “Hindu side” was not exercising restraint in expressing their views on the sub-judice Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute.
Referring to the statements of some pro-temple leaders, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who is appearing for M Siddiq — an appellant in the suit who has died but is represented through his legal heir — told the top court that “it is extremely important that people should restrain themselves, especially the Hindu side. So far as the Hindu side is concerned, it has not observed restraint”.
Dhavan told the three-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhan and S Abdul Nazeer that some leaders have said they would go to Parliament to ensure construction of a Ram Temple, which was “contemptuous and amount to pre-judging and pressuring the court”.
Dhavan assailed certain findings of the 1994 verdict of the apex court in the M Ismail Faruqui case — which held that “a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam…” and “accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India” — should be referred to a Constitution bench before any decision was taken on the main title suit.
He contented the 1994 verdict had an impact on the Allahabad High Court’s September 2010 ruling in the Ayodhya title suit — the high court had ordered a three-way partition of the land between Ram Lalla Virajman, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board.
Dhavan said the verdict in the Faruqui case was “founded on a confusion regarding the application of the essential and/or integral test which needs to be resolved as a matter of constitutional significance.”
“These concepts here permeated the judgment in the suits and the appeals (of Ayodhya case). It is submitted that these issues need to go to a larger bench of 5 or 7 judges,” he said.
Senior advocate K Parasaran, who is appearing for Ram Lalla Virajman, opposed it and said referring the matter to larger bench would affect the acquisition of the land post the demolition.
The court will hear the matter on May 17.