Swamy’s tireless efforts bear fruit – Ram Mandir case final arguments in SC to start from December 5

After seven long years of hibernation, due to the tireless efforts of Senior BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, the Supreme Court on Friday fixed December 5 as the starting date of the Ram Janma Bhoomi – Babri Masjid dispute case. After a hearing that lasted around two hours of heated arguments, the Apex court Bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Abdul Nazeer directed that no adjournments will be allowed in the final arguments. The country’s much watched politically and religiously sensitive case will be heard on a day-to-day basis from December 5th onwards.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was opposing the counsel for Lord Ram Lala (deity) and the Uttar Pradesh government, said that only the main parties should be allowed to argue in the matter and “Kurta-Pyjama stuff should not be permitted”.

While Uttar Pradesh Government and Lord Ram Lala’s advocates argued for an early settlement and starting of the case, a battery of lawyers led by Kapil Sibal and Rajeev Dhavan representing the Sunni Wakf Board opposed it tooth and nail for the early start of the case citing many technical issues like the translation of documents etc. Sibal and Dhavan mainly focused on Subramanian Swamy becoming an intervener in the case. At one point, Rajeev Dhavan, infamous for his foul language in the court rooms even termed Swamy as Kurta Pyjama fellows intervening in the case.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was opposing the counsel for Lord Ram Lala (deity) and the Uttar Pradesh government, said that only the main parties should be allowed to argue in the matter and “Kurta-Pyjama stuff should not be permitted”.

His statement was strongly opposed by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Tushar Mehta as Dhavan’s remark was apparently targeted at Swamy, who was clad in the traditional Indian attire and a waist jacket. “He (Dhavan) should not be permitted to make such statements. I strongly object to such comments,” the ASG, who was appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, said.

Dhavan quickly defused the situation stating that his statement was for others “except Swamy”. Mehta supported the intervention plea of Swamy and said, “He can be heard.”

“I would like to make out a case based on the Constitution that fundamental right gets precedent over property right,” Swamy said.

Keeping his cool in the Court room, Swamy settled scores with Dhavan and Sibal on Twitter:

and he went on to attack Rajeev Dhavan:

The bench made it clear that the parties would have to strictly adhere to the time frame fixed by it and that no adjournment would be given under any circumstance.

The apex court, after an intense deliberation for around two hours, reached a consensus on commencement of the hearing on a total of 13 appeals filed against the 2010 judgment of the Allahabad High Court in four civil suits. The high court had ruled a three-way division of the disputed 2.77-acre area at Ayodhya among the parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and the Lord Ram Lala.

Another sect of the Muslims under the banner of Shia Central Waqf Board of Uttar Pradesh recently went to the court offering a solution that a mosque could be built in a Muslim- dominated area at a “reasonable distance” from the disputed site in Ayodhya.

However, its intervention has been opposed by the All India Sunni Waqf Board which claimed that judicial adjudication between the two sects had already been done in 1946 by declaring the mosque, which was demolished on December 6, 1992, as that belonging to the Sunnis.

The specially constituted bench, headed by Justice Dipak Misra, asked the contesting parties to complete the translation of the exhibits of the documents likely to be relied upon into English within 12 weeks since these were in eight different languages including Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu, Persian, Pali and Arabic. The bench asked the Uttar Pradesh government to complete within 10 weeks the translation of the evidence recorded for adjudication of the title dispute in the high court in English.

The bench made it clear that the parties would have to strictly adhere to the time frame fixed by it and that no adjournment would be given under any circumstance.

The top court said it would not allow the matter to take any shape other than the civil appeals and would adopt the same procedure as was done by the high court. It said it would strictly go by the Civil Procedure Code and the Evidence Act.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had said the land be partitioned equally among three parties…

BJP leader Subramanian Swamy made an attempt to raise the issue of the fundamental right of religion of the Hindus under Article 25 of the Constitution. He said during the adjudication of the matter he would like to make out a case that the fundamental right should get precedence over the property right.

However, the bench made it clear that it would first hear the main appellants and respondents in the case which involved the parties such as Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Lord Ram Lala. Swamy’s arguments on the fundamental right of worship and archaeological survey evidence were expected to be in the end of the hearing.

Senior counsel C S Vaidyanathan, appearing for Lord Ram Lala and Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the UP government, pressed for early hearing of the matter. A battery of senior advocates including Vikas Singh, Shyam Divan, UP Advocate General Raghvendra Singh, Huzefa Ahmadi appeared for appellants and intervenors in the matter. Swamy’s legal team was comprised of his wife and Advocate Roxna Swamy and his associates Ishkaran Bhandari and Yatinder Chaudhary.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had said the land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lala. On July 21, a bench, headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar, had said that it would soon take a decision to list the matter for early hearing.

The court’s remark had come on a plea of BJP leader Swamy who sought an urgent hearing of the matter. Swamy had said the main appeals against the Allahabad High Court order were pending for the last seven years in the apex court and these required an urgent hearing. He had also said that a separate petition was earlier filed by him seeking enforcement of his right to worship without “much hassle” at the site.

Subramanian Swamy briefed the media about the Court proceedings which has been captured in this video by Mahesh Joshi.

Amazing Dr @Swamy39 Ji Activated #RamMandir Case in SC, Despite Desperate Opposition by #AntiHindu ‘Zero’ Sibal & Team ! @jagdishshetty pic.twitter.com/t6FLOekInB

— #ProtectWithPen MJ (@MaheshJoshi_MJ) August 11, 2017

• Author
• Recent Posts

Team PGurus

We are a team of focused individuals with expertise in at least one of the following fields viz. Journalism, Technology, Economics, Politics, Sports & Business. We are factual, accurate and unbiased.

Latest posts by Team PGurus (see all)

• Prime Minister Narendra Modi: A Gujju businessman who does not invest his precious time for a losing battle - April 13, 2024
• NIA arrests two accused Shazib and Taahaa in Bengaluru’s Rameshwaram Cafe blast case from Kolkata - April 12, 2024
• National Herald scam: Adjudicating Authority upholds Rs.752 crore assets attached by ED - April 11, 2024