SC SAYS IT SEES AYODHYA AS A ‘PURE LAND DISPUTE’

Will first hear those main parties to the dispute; also says third parties cannot intervene in what is just a title suit; no day-to day hearings

The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will deal with the politically sensitive Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid case as a pure land dispute and refused to hear it on dayto-day basis.

This essentially means the court will not be swayed by ‘religious’ or ‘majoritarian’ sentiment and merely adjudicate on what it sees as a case of disputed land occupation. It was against this preface that the Ayodhya dispute has entered its last lap.

Thursday’s hearing was also disciplined, as against the last one in February which had turned into a slanging match after senior lawyers Kapil Sibal, Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, appearing for some of the petitioners, had pressed for postponing of the hearing to after the 2019 Lok Sabha election, citing its repercussions for the country's polity.

The apex court, on Thursday, during the course of an hour-long hearing, also clarified that it was first inclined to hear those who were parties to the dispute in the Allahabad High Court.

It said those who have tried to wade into the matter before it and sought to implead themselves as parties will have to wait as the case before it was a "pure land dispute".

The reference was possibly to a group of 32 prominent citizens, including filmmaker Shyam Benegal, who want to intervene in this case, prompting the court to wonder how they could be associated with what was essentially a "title suit".

‘‘How can third parties intervene? For now, we are neither dismissing it nor allowing it", the bench, also comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, observed.

The bench also expressed its reservations about hearing the title suit on day-today basis. "Over 700 poor litigants (in other cases) are waiting for justice, we have to hear them also. Devoting one-and-a-half hour every day will help in disposing of these cases," the bench said.

On being informed by parties that pleadings were almost complete, the bench asked them to file within two weeks the English translations of documents, exhibits and excerpts from vernacular books, which have been used in the high court.

The court was hearing a batch of cross petitions challenging 2010 Allahabad High Court verdict that had divided the disputed Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi site between the Nirmohi Akhara, Lord Ram deity and the Sunni Waqf Board.

Meanwhile, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, which is beginning a crucial three-day plenary in Hyderabad on Friday, has demanded contempt of court proceedings against those speaking of building a Ram temple at the site of the razed Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The suggestion has come from a Shiv Sena MP.