Treat Ayodhya title suit as property dispute, Supreme Court told

Source – indianexpress.com

Senior Advocate Harish Salve Friday requested the Supreme Court to treat the Ayodhya title suit as a “property dispute” underlining that the country had moved away from the events of 1992 when the Babri Masjid was brought down by Kar Sevaks.

“This country has moved far away from the events of 1992 and we are left with a property dispute. Let’s keep it to that,” Salve told a bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan.

The bench was hearing appeals against the Allahabad High Court decision to split the 2.7 acres disputed land between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board. Salve was appearing for Gopal Singh Visharad, one of the petitioners in a civil suit filed in 1950.

Opposing a plea by Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, who requested the court to send the entire Ayodhya matter to a five-judge Constitution bench in view of its importance, Salve said such decisions must be guided by “constitutionality and not sentiments.”

Issues like the “sensibility of the people…what the small screen will say…they have to be left outside the gate of this court,” he said. Salve said the apex court had recently referred petitions challenging polygamy in the Muslim community to a Constitution bench as it raised questions of constitutionality. “…When there is a question of Constitutionality, it shall go to Constitution bench. That has been the rule.”

Appearing for two of the petitioners, M Siddiqui and another, Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan had requested the court to refer the judgment in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui vs Union of India case – in which it was held that “a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam” and “accordingly, its acquisition is not prohibited by the provisions in the Constitution of India” – to a Constitution bench.

Dhavan had asked why the court had sent a plea challenging polygamy among Muslims to a Constitution bench as soon as it came up before it, but decided to hear him before taking a decision on his plea.

Senior Advocate K Parasaran, representing Ram Lalla Virajman, has backed Salve and said Constitution benches were not devised to hear matters where evidence has to be appreciated.

“It is substantially a property matter though religious sentiments may also come in… This is not a fit case for sending to a Constitution bench,” Parasaran said.

Earlier, Ramachandran, who also represented Siddiqui and his co-petitioner, said the apex court had on several instances referred cases to the Constitution bench only because their importance.

“The outcome of this case has a vital bearing on the social fabric of the country because two major communities are involved… It is indisputable that this dispute is a sui generis (a class by itself) dispute and very important in the life of the nation… (and) hence it is appropriate that a bench of five-judges hear the matter,” Ramachandran said.

Disputing Salve’s submission, Ramachandran said, “Matters which affect the constitutional ethos of the country can also be referred to a Constitution bench.” The court will now hear the matter on May 15.