Counsel objects to Hindutva leaders’ remarks on temple

NEWDELHI: Reiterating the demand to refer the Babri Masjid-ram Janmabhoomi case to a larger bench of either five or seven judges, senior advocate Rajiv Dhawan, counsel for the Muslim petitioners to the suit, took objection to the statements by certain Hindutva leaders that a temple will be constructed in Ayodhya even while the Supreme Court was hearing the matter.

Dhavan said, “We (Muslim parties) have (exercised) complete restraint” so as not to “muddy the waters”. The counsel told an apex court bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra that his client, lead petitioner M Siddiqui, even contemplated a contempt petition against such persons at one point in time but chose to exercise restraint.

The court in the past ordered restraint on parties from making public statements so long as it was seized of the matter.

Dhawan also objected to the Hindu parties referring to report of the Archaeological Survey of India in defence of the temple being at the Babri Masjid site.

He said the court must first look into the flaws in the 1994 fiveJudge bench judgment in the Ismail Faruqui case, wherein it said a mosque was not an integral part of religious practice of offering prayers. Dhavan said this verdict completely denuded the concept of religious practices under Article 25 of the Constitution.

In an earlier hearing, the counsel told the court that a larger bench of either five or seven Judges has to revisit the issue and decide “what is the meaning of mosque to the Muslims” and is it taken as a “gospel truth that a mosque is not essential to Muslims and Islam”.

He said that as per the 1994 judgment, there is no constitutional protection for the Muslims’ right to offer prayers whereas the Hindus’ right to offer worship stands at a superior position.

The bench has posted the matter for further hearing on May 17.