Ayodhya case: Supreme Court hints at referring case to larger bench, if necessary

New Delhi: Amidst high drama and demands for deferring the hearing till July 2019 (after Parliamentary elections), the Supreme Court on Tuesday posted for final hearing in February 2018 a batch of 13 appeals against an Allahabad High Court verdict in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title suit in the disputed site in Ayodhya, granting 2/3rd of land to Hindus and 1/3rd to Muslims.

After a 90-minute preliminary hearing, a special bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer expressed “shock and surprise” at the request made by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sunni Wakf Board that the appeals should be heard only after July 2019. 

The bench, however, refused to defer the hearing till July 2019.  

Mr Sibal said the BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy had gone on record saying that Ram temple would be built before 2019 through legal means. They want to make it as an election manifesto and the court should not fall into the trap. He said these appeals are not ordinary property disputes as they “go to the heart of secular fabric of the country”. He said, “We can’t commence our arguments unless all the documents are before us. We need time to prepare for our arguments.”

“Please don’t rush through the hearing, defer it till July 2019. I hope this court understands what is happening outside the country.”

The CJI told Mr Sibal “We are not concerned about what is being spoken or said outside the country. For us it is a property title suit. We will strictly go by legal issues.” Justice Bhushan drew the attention of Mr Sibal and others and said, “In August you wanted the appeals to be heard in January and we have clearly told you that Tuesday is fixed for statement of facts. Now you are telling us that we should hear after July 2019. You are making it as a non-serious issue.”  

Senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, also appearing for Muslim parties, urged that the matter should be heard by a seven-judge bench in view of the wide ramifications involved in the appeals. Mr Dhavan pointed out that in 1994 a five-judge Constitution bench had categorically stated that “Mosque is not an essential part of Islam and Muslims can do their prayer anywhere.”

He said the court had also taken a view that mosque need not be re-built at this site. As this verdict is binding on three-judges the matter should go to seven-judge bench, he said. He said it would take more than a year for arguments to be completed and that hearing could not be completed before October 2018.

On the demand for hearing by a larger bench, Mr. Salve said the three judges should proceed with the hearing and if occasion arose that questions of law are also to be decided which require adjudication by a larger bench, then the court can to refer it to a large bench or not. The bench while fixing the date for final hearing said no adjournments would be granted, as there will be daily hearing.