The Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, clarified Tuesday night that senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan would continue to represent the Muslim party after the latter claimed he was “sacked” from the case.
In a press release issued later in the evening, the Jamiat said there was some misunderstanding over the issue and it would issue an apology to Dhavan.
Taking to Facebook, the party’s legal adviser Shahid Nadeem said they were “indebted” to Dhavan for his services in the case. “The President Jamiat Ulama I Hind Hazrat Maulana Sayyed Arshad Madani DB will be meeting him personally and will sort out the misunderstanding and controversy looming,” he said.
Earlier in the day, Dhavan, who represented the Muslim parties in the Ayodhya title dispute case, said he was no longer involved with the review plea filed by the Jamiat and refuted claims that he was removed because he was “unwell.”
As the news emerged, other Muslim parties said they were keen to have Dhavan on board and that the decision to remove him was taken only by Jamiat.
Dhavan, meanwhile, said the Muslim parties involved in the Ayodhya matter should sort out their differences first. “I have argued the case for all the Muslim parties in a united manner and would like the same way. The Muslim parties should sort out their differences first,” Dhavan told PTI. He also added he has sent a formal letter “accepting the sacking without demur” but said Jamiat citing his health as the reason for his removal is “nonsense…malicious and untrue.”
Jamiat’s advocate Ejaz Maqbool said Dhavan’s name was not given in the review petition filed on Monday because he was not available. “It is wrong to say that Mr Rajeev Dhawan was removed from the case because of his illness. The issue is that my client (Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind) wanted to file the review petition yesterday itself. It was to be settled by Mr Rajeev Dhawan. I could not give his name in the petition because he was not available. It is not a big issue,” he told news agency ANI.
Maulana Syed Ashhad Rashidi, the legal heir of original litigant M Siddiq and the president of the Uttar Pradesh Jamiat Ulama-I-Hind, who filed the review plea against the Ayodhya verdict December 2, said the November 9 judgment amounted to “rewarding” the “crimes” committed by “Hindu parties”.
The plea said that by way of the order, the court “has virtually granted a mandamus to destroy the Babri Masjid and to construct a temple of Lord Ram in the said place”…”because had the Babri Masjid not been illegally demolished on December 6, 1992, the execution of the present order would have required the destruction of an existing mosque to make space for a proposed temple”.
The AIMPLB also said it would file a review petition before December 9, saying the judgment in the Ayodhya land dispute case did not do any justice.
However, the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind (JUH) faction led by Maulana Mahmood Madani has decided against filing a review petition in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case.
📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines