Supreme Court/File Image
There was intense exchange of words between the bench and a senior advocate representing a Muslim party on the first day of Supreme Court in the politically-sensitive case of Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is hearing the Ayodhya land dispute. Hearing in the Supreme Court has begun on Day 2.
Ayodhya case hearing: Here's what happened on Day 1
SC bench irked. Here's why
On Tuesday, the bench which was hearing submissions on senior advocate Sushil Jain on behalf of Nirmohi Akhara in the case, got irked when senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan injected the arguments. The apex court bench that also comprised Justice SA Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer, asked Jain, who was referring to some records, not to read further the written submission as they did not pertain to or support his case.
Dhavan, representing the legal heirs of one of the Muslim litigants, got up and said that they are important and he will place them before the court when his turn comes. Irked over the interjection, the CJI told Dhavan, "You argue whatever you want when your turn comes. You will get equal opportunity to argue." Dhavan replied, "I hope so." To this, the CJI said, "We do not want to curtail anybody's right for argument".
Dhavan then said that he was just responding to the query of the bench. "Dr Dhavan, please keep in mind that you are officer of the court and all we are saying that we are not going to curtail anybody's arguments. There are ways of replying," the CJI said. Dhavan replied: "Yes, I am an officer of the court". To this, the CJI said, "Dr Dhavan, keep the dignity of the court in mind."
Muslims offered only Friday prayers from 1934-49, says Hindu body claiming rights
Nirmohi Akhara, one of the claimants of the disputed Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site at Ayodhya, told the Supreme Court Tuesday that its possession was "exclusive" as after the 1934 riots till 1949, Muslims were allowed to offer Friday prayers only, that too under police protection.
The Akhara, which claimed to be manager through its Mahant of Ram Janambhoomi, told the top court that only offering Friday prayers under police protection would not change the legal character of the possession of the disputed site. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi was told by senior advocate Sushil Jain that offering mere Friday prayers cannot lead to a conclusion of "joint possession" of the structure by the Hindus and the Muslims.
Nirmohi Akhara seeks control of entire 2.77 acre disputed land
Nirmohi Aakhara asserted its claim over the disputed site where the medieval structure was demolished on December 6, 1992, and said that Muslims have not been allowed to enter the place since 1934. The Hindu body said it was claiming ownership and possession of the "main temple" as also to be the manager of the birth place of Lord Rama.
