Shifting of Babri case to SC opposed

A file photo of Muslims observing Babri Masjid demolition anniversary with black flags at a mosque in Ayodhya .

A file photo of Muslims observing Babri Masjid demolition anniversary with black flags at a mosque in Ayodhya .   | Photo Credit: PTI


In a two-hour hearing, rival parties spar over five-judge Constitution Bench deciding dispute

Rival parties sparred in the Supreme Court on Friday over shifting the volatile Ramjanmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title appeals to a five-judge Constitution Bench.

In a two-hour long hearing before a three-judge Special Bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, senior advocate Raju Ramachandran said the Ramjanmabhoomi dispute is sui generis (unique). Two major religious communities of the country are involved, and the outcome of the case would affect the social fabric of the country, if not the life of the nation. He was appearing for M. Siddiq.

Senior advocate Harish Salve immediately countered Mr. Ramachandran, saying the country has moved away from the 1992 events.

The Babri Masjid was demolished by kar sevaks on December 6, 1992.

‘Property dispute’

“Today we are only left with a property dispute,” Mr. Salve submitted, who is for Gopal Singh Visharad, a party in one of the original suits in the case.

Mr. Salve said “political and religious sensibilities should be left outside the gates of the Supreme Court.”

Mr. Ramachandran argued that the dispute started in the middle of the 19th century concerning the mosque that had stood at the place. Appeals from both sides of the dispute against the Allahabad High Court judgment dividing the property into three portions show neither side is happy.

Mr. Ramachandran said the Supreme Court, as the last court in the country, should bring “judicial quietus” to the dispute by having five judges solemnly decide the questions of fact.

Illustrating the importance of the dispute and how it has been part of the national discourse, he submitted that both the government and a major political party have separately published White Papers explaining their respective stands.

Mr. Salve, in turn, argued that only questions of constitutional sensitivity or matters where there is a difference of opinion between two past judgments are sent to the Constitution Bench for a final word. Former attorney-general K. Parasaran said cases in which evidence has to be appreciated are not sent to the Constitution Bench.

Why you should pay for quality journalism - Click to know more

Recommended for you
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

Printable version | Jan 26, 2020 5:14:28 PM |

Next Story