Ayodhya dispute: Set up 7-judge bench, says Sibal; SC defers hearing to Feb 8
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday commenced final hearing in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute, a day before the 25th anniversary of the demolition of medieval-era structure.
A specially constituted Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer are hearing a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits.
Kapil Sibal who is representing Sunni Waqf Board read out in the Supreme Court the details of exhibits filed by the contesting defendants before the Allahabad High Court.
Sibal told the three-judge bench that all these exhibits were not filled before the court. He submitted that all the pleadings were not complete.
Rebutting all the averments of Kapil Sibal, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh told SC that all the related documents and requisite translation copies were on record.
Kapil Sibal also raised doubts over assertions of ASG Mehta and asked how more than 19000 pages of documents could be filed in such short time. Sibal told SC that he and other petitioners have not been served relevant documents of pleadings.
Sibal told SC that there have serious repercussions outside court whenever the matter is heard.
Therefore, to preserve the decorum of law and order, Sibal personally requested the court to take the matter up on July 15, 2019, once all the pleadings are complete.
Advocates Kapil Sibal, Rajiv Dhawan along with other petitioner counsels also sought for a larger bench of at least 7 judges to hear the matter.
Petitioners also pleaded in the SC for reasonable time to translate, file and serve the copies of all the exhibits and relevant documents, which were filed before the Allahabad High Court bench at Lucknow.
The Allahabad High Court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acre area at Ayodhya among the parties — the All India Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.
A sect of Muslims, under the banner of Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh, had approached the court, offering a solution that a mosque could be built in a Muslim-dominated area at a “reasonable distance” from the disputed site in Ayodhya.
Sunni Waqf Board's opposition
However, its intervention was opposed by the Sunni Waqf Board. It claimed that judicial adjudication between the two sects was done in 1946 by declaring the mosque, which was demolished on December 6, 1992, as one which belongs to the Sunnis.
Recently a group of civil rights activists also moved the apex court, seeking intervention in the dispute and urged it to consider the issue, saying it is not just a dispute over property but has several other aspects that would have far-reaching effects on the “secular fabric of the country.”
In pursuance to the apex court’s earlier direction, the Yogi Adityanath government has submitted English translation of exhibits and documents likely to be relied upon, as these were in eight different languages.
A battery of high profile lawyers, including senior advocates K Parasaran and CS Vaidyanathan and advocate Saurabh Shamsheri, will appear for Lord Ram Lalla, the deity. Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will represent the Uttar Pradesh government.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, Anoop George Chaudhari, Rajeev Dhavan and Sushil Jain will represent other parties, including the Sunni Waqf Board and Nirmohi Akhara.
BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, an intervenor in the matter, had attempted to raise the issue of fundamental right of religion of the Hindus under Article 25 of the Constitution.
Many of the original plantiffs and defendants in the matter, including Mohd Hashim, who was the first person to take the matter to the apex court, have died.
