High drama at SC as Sibal, Dhavan, Dave, Salve appear in Ayodhya dispute

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra assembled in courtroom 1 of the Supreme Court today to hear the Ayodhya land dispute, amidst high drama..The matter, which was listed for hearing after seven years, was eventually adjourned for February next year. Today’s hearing in the Supreme Court was not without incident, to say the least..The hearing commenced with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board, levelling allegations against the State of Uttar Pradesh for not submitting and serving the records and documents on time..The arguments of Sibal were refuted by ASG Tushar Mehta, who was appearing for the state of UP. The bickering continued for a while, before the Bench interfered and told the lawyers that both the sides have to be heard and that each of them must give a statement..While Sibal prayed for more time in order to peruse the documents, which ran into thousands of pages, Rajeev Dhavan commented that the matter will not get over before October 2018. Dhavan appeared for one of the petitioners, N Siddiq..Dhavan then submitted that this matter goes to the heart of the secular fabric of the country. He then cited the 1994 judgment, which states that a mosque is not an essential part of the religion..Sibal, in his submissions, stated that decision of this case will have repurcussions outside the Court. He then proceeded to tell the Court that since the BJP has the issue of Ram Mandir in their election manifesto, the Bench must hear the matter only after July 2019..Further, he alluded to the fact that the matter was being heard on the insistence of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, who was not even a party to the case..His arguments were rejected by Harish Salve, who stated that the Bench must be unperturbed by the consequences of the judgment and proceed to hear the matter. Salve, who appeared for Ram Janmabhoomi Trust, said that adjourning the issue will send a wrong signal..A verbal spat between both sides ensued, with the Bench having to intervene..Dushyant Dave, appearing for Farooq Ahmad, wanted the matter to be heard by a larger Bench of five or seven Judges..Dhavan and Dave then expressed their displeasure and threatened to stage a walk out if the Court agrees to hear the opening statement of the other appellants without letting them peruse the exhibits..The Bench, while passing the order, asked for the status report of the documents filed. The order also states that the AoRs of the parties will sit together in harmony and file a common memorandum. The Court has granted liberty to the parties to approach the Registry if any problem arises..Interestingly, the Court also noted the submissions of Sibal, Dhavan and Dave and stated the following in its order:.“We will be failing in our duty if we do not note some submissions advanced by Mr. Kapil Sibal that these are not ordinary appeals arising out of ordinary suits and, therefore, it should not be heard at present. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel appearing in Civil Appeal No. 5498/2011 echoed the submissions made by Mr. Kapil Sibal, apart from stating certain other aspects which are not worth noting because they do not relate to the lis. In fact a novel prayer was advanced that the matter should be listed some time in 2019. Dr. Dhavan, learned senior counsel almost thought of writing a Shavian preface, which can more than be main drama or a play, by stating that he would require four months to read, prepare and argue. We have noted this, as the said submission was advanced with medieval passion and sans reason.”.Regarding the submissions made by the Senior Advocates to recuse from the case, the Court noted,.“At this juncture, we are compelled to note that Mr. Sibal, Dr. Dhavan and Mr. Dushyant Dave sought leave of this Court to recuse themselves from proceeding with the argument. We declined the said permission and we must say, that they accepted. If we permit ourselves to say so, the submission was shocking and surprising and when we proceeded to record so, prayer was made not to do so and we, accepting the fervent request made by the counsel, refrain from recording so.”.The Bench then proceeded to list the matter on February 8, 2018..Read the order below. .Image courtesy:.Kapil Sibal.Rajeev Dhavan