UP govt is no more neutral in the matter, says counsel
NEW DELHI: Drawing a parallel between the destruction of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya to the Bamiyan Buddha’s demolition in Afghanistan, one of the litigants in the Ram Janmabhoomi-babri Masjid title dispute case accused the Uttar Pradesh government of not remaining neutral in the matter, as had been promised.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, petitioner IM Siddiqui’s counsel, said if the Talibans had pulled down Buddha’s statue in Bamiyan, then “Hindu Talibans” had demolished the mosque in Ayodhya. Dhavan advanced his arguments before a special bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra. The bench is hearing the decades-old title suit, with both sides appealing against the Allahabad high court judgement that apportioned 2.77 acres of land into three portions — Hindus, one Muslims and Ram Lalla.
No faith, Dhavan said, was allowed to destroy a mosque as Constitution preserves democracy in the country. Dhavan then criticised the top court’s 1994 ruling that said mosque is not integral to Muslim religion.
“No faith has the right to destroy a mosque .. . and then to argue that now it has been destroyed, you have no right to pray.” It is the argument of Muslim parties that the HC was influenced by the SC’S ruling.
Dhavan recalled UP government’s assurance to the SC. “The authorities were supposed to play a neutral role. This is evident from their own pleadings which have also been recorded in judgment (on the mosque not being integral to Muslim faith).
The state has taken a non-neutral stance,” Dhavan argued.
He contended the state’s intervention was uncalled for. Additional solicitor general Tushar Mehta is appearing for the state.
“ASG is the officer of the Union of India which is the statutory receiver in the case,” Dhavan said, saying not only was it breach of faith of the court but also impermissible.
Mehta had opposed Dhavan’s demand for a reference. He had on the last hearing said such a demand was never raised all these years and to make the submissions at this stage was nothing but an attempt to delay and avoid a final decision of a longpending dispute.
Senior advocate SN Singh appearing for Shia Board said the board wanted “to donate one third land granted to Muslims by the high court to Hindus for building the Ram temple.”
“For the unity, integrity, peace and harmony of this great country, Shia Waqf Board is in favour of donating Muslim share of land to the Hindus,” he said. It claimed that the rival Sunni Board is under the dominant control of “Sunni hardliners,” “fanatics” and “non-believers in peaceful coexistence,whohaveabsolutely no stake in the present case.”
It pleaded that to bring quietus to the decades old dispute, the Masjid could be located in a Muslim dominated area at a reasonable distance,” saying it believes that its efforts would definitely bring an amicable settlement.