‘ Is polygamy more critical than Ayodhya dispute?’

Amidst ruckus created by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan on whether the “Ayodhya dispute” is less important than “polygamy”, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to examine whether the entire Ayodhya title dispute can be sent to the Constitution Bench.

A A three- judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, also made it clear to Mr Dhavan that it will decide whether to send the matter to the larger bench only after hearing all parties to the litigation.

“We will not restrict the scope of arguments only to reconsideration of 1994 verdict. You ( Dhavan) can argue for referring the entire title suit to a constitution bench,” the bench told Mr Dhavan. Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer are the other judges in the bench.

At the outset, Mr Dhavan, appearing for main petitioner M. Siddiq, referred to a recent order passed for referring “polygamy” issue to a Constitution Bench of five judges and asked the court whether Ayodhya dispute is less important than polygamy for not referring to five judges.

“People of India want to know whether polygamy is more important than Ayodhya dispute. This court must answer now. Ayodhya case is not being dealt with the importance it deserves,” Mr Dhavan told the court. He repeatedly said and urged the CJI to refer this matter to a constitution bench now itself.

Senior counsels K. Parasaran and C. S. Vaidyanathan strongly opposed the words used by Mr Dhavan, insinuating senior lawyers present in the court and Mr Soli Sorabjee, who is not present.

Objecting to Mr Dhavan’s submissions, Mr Parasran told the court, “What sort of argument is this? Nation wants to know and Supreme Court must answer. You ( Mr Dhavan) are not alone who is representing the nation. We ( petitioners representing Hindus) are also representing the nation. When one is asking for a reconsideration of the 1994 verdict it has to be examined. As far as we are concerned, the verdict did not require reconsideration. Further no review can be permitted after 25 years.”

Mr Parasaran added that it was not proper to compare “polygamy” case with Ayodhya dispute. Last year when triple talaq was decided by the Constitution bench, this issue was left open and for this reason only polygamy was referred to five judges. But here we are dealing with a case, which is already decided, and he is seeking reconsideration.