In the Ayodhya Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid case, Senior Counsel Rajiv Dhavan today told the Supreme Court of a possible contempt petition against some political leaders..Making his submissions before the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer on the question of whether the Ayodhya matter should be heard by a Constitution Bench or not, Dhawan said that “Hindu side” was not observing self-restraint and continued to make statements on this issue while the matter remained sub-judice..“While the case is being heard, people should restrain themselves. But the Hindu side has not done that. We have drafted a contempt petition. I would caution all of us not to muddy the water”, Dhavan said..He said that prejudgement in a case like this should not be allowed..Dhawan also went on to point out before the Court that the case was still in its preliminary phase and yet, there were attempts made to speak about reports and findings of the Archaeological Survey of India..“But I want to caution against it since that would mean going into the merits of the case while we are still in the preliminary phase”, he said..Making a case for the transfer of this matter to a Constitution Bench, Dhavan invoked Article 25 of the Constitution of India stating that this Article protects all religions..Dhavan based his argument largely on the principle of “integral” and “essential” religious practices on the question of significant places for an offering of prayers quoting heavily from the case Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India. Speaking on the secular fabric of the country, Dhavan said that there shouldn’t be “comparative significance” made on the issue of religious places. He added that if Hindus have the right to offer prayers at the disputed site, then that does not and cannot take away the right of the Muslims to offer prayers at the same site..Dhavan was critical of the arguments often made about Muslims not needing a specific place to offer namaz and said that this argument cannot be a reason to not grant protection to Muslim shrines under Articles 25 and 26. To drive his point home, Dhavan said that a message cannot be sent out that temples are more important than mosques..Dhavan said that the question before the Court will be whether it could be said that Muslim claim on the area stands to be non-judiciable adding that the Court will have to decide on the point “essentiality” as was laid down in Ismail Farooqui case..The Court will continue hearing this matter on May 17.
In the Ayodhya Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid case, Senior Counsel Rajiv Dhavan today told the Supreme Court of a possible contempt petition against some political leaders..Making his submissions before the Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer on the question of whether the Ayodhya matter should be heard by a Constitution Bench or not, Dhawan said that “Hindu side” was not observing self-restraint and continued to make statements on this issue while the matter remained sub-judice..“While the case is being heard, people should restrain themselves. But the Hindu side has not done that. We have drafted a contempt petition. I would caution all of us not to muddy the water”, Dhavan said..He said that prejudgement in a case like this should not be allowed..Dhawan also went on to point out before the Court that the case was still in its preliminary phase and yet, there were attempts made to speak about reports and findings of the Archaeological Survey of India..“But I want to caution against it since that would mean going into the merits of the case while we are still in the preliminary phase”, he said..Making a case for the transfer of this matter to a Constitution Bench, Dhavan invoked Article 25 of the Constitution of India stating that this Article protects all religions..Dhavan based his argument largely on the principle of “integral” and “essential” religious practices on the question of significant places for an offering of prayers quoting heavily from the case Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui v. Union of India. Speaking on the secular fabric of the country, Dhavan said that there shouldn’t be “comparative significance” made on the issue of religious places. He added that if Hindus have the right to offer prayers at the disputed site, then that does not and cannot take away the right of the Muslims to offer prayers at the same site..Dhavan was critical of the arguments often made about Muslims not needing a specific place to offer namaz and said that this argument cannot be a reason to not grant protection to Muslim shrines under Articles 25 and 26. To drive his point home, Dhavan said that a message cannot be sent out that temples are more important than mosques..Dhavan said that the question before the Court will be whether it could be said that Muslim claim on the area stands to be non-judiciable adding that the Court will have to decide on the point “essentiality” as was laid down in Ismail Farooqui case..The Court will continue hearing this matter on May 17.