Ruckus in SC over Hindu Taliban jibe

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on a preliminary issue in the Ayodhya title dispute whether the 1994 ruling, viz “a mosque is not an essential aspect of Islam and namaz (prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open” requires to be revisited by a five-judge Constitution bench.

A three-judge bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer agreed to examine this as a preliminary issue after senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for one of the Muslim parties, submitted that the 1994 verdict was wrong and required reconsideration.

Before arguments began, there was a ruckus in the court when senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan and several others appearing for Hindus, objected to Mr Dhavan’s earlier remarks that “Hindu Taliban” had destroyed the Babri mosque in 1991.

The lawyers said such arguments should not be allowed to be made which has no relevance to the case. They pointed out that Mr Dhavan’s argument had put Hindus in a bad light.

Mr Dhavan told the court, “I stand by my statement. This Constitution has preserved our democracy and rule of law. It is my view that just as Bamiyan statue was destroyed by Taliban, the Babri mosque was destroyed by Hindu Talibans on December 6, 1992.”

The CJI told Mr Dhavan that as a senior advocate he should exercise restraint in his arguments and said the use of the word (Taliban) was inappropriate, out of context and not relevant to the issue.

Mr Dhavan said he did not agree with the CJI on exercising restraint as his argument stemmed from Hindu Taliban demolished the mosque and that Hindus must bear the cost. Mr. Dhavan repeated that those Hindus who demolished Babri Mosque are Taliban and some advocates behave like that in this court.

Mr. Dhavan said he meant every word and December 6, 92 was an instance of “Hindu terror” I don’t think my using Hindu Taliban was inappropriate as it is an act of terrorism. The CJI replied, “You may think what you may, but the court thinks it was completely inappropriate.” Lawyers must maintain decorum inside the court.

A lawyer took serious objection to Mr. Dhavan’s words and shouted at Dhavan “You are comparing Hindus with Taliban, what kind of word is this.” He was later escorted out of the court hall. After 20 minutes of heated exchanges, Mr. Dhavan pleaded for revisiting the 1994 verdict.

Stressing the need for relook at the 1994 verdict, Mr Dhavan contended that a mosque enjoys a particular position in Muslim law and once a mosque is established and prayers are offered in such a mosque, the same remains for all time to come as a property of Allah and the same never reverts back to the donor or founder of the mosque and any person professing Islamic faith can offer prayer in such a mosque and even if the structure is demolished, the place remains the same where the Namaz can be offered.

Counsel faulted the finding that Ayodhya is said to be of particular significance to the Hindus as a place of pilgrimage because of the ancient belief that Lord Rama was born there, whereas the mosque was of significance for the Muslim community as an ancient mosque built by Mir Baqi in 1528 A.D. This indicates the comparative significance of the disputed site to the two communities, the court said while ordering 'status quo’ on worship by Hindus. He said when religious practices are common to all religions, reading down religion of Islam and raising the status of Hindus by way of comparative significance cannot be accepted. 

Mr. Dhavan pointed out that the 1994 verdict ordering 'status quo’ on installation of Ram Idol in the disputed site, recognised Hindus right to worship at that place but completely ignored the rights of Muslims to offer namaz in the Babri Masjid. The observation that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and Namaz. (Prayer) by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in open, required to be revisited as the Allahabad High Court while deciding the title suit in 2010 had apportioned one third of the land to Hindus, one third to Muslims and one third to Ram Lulla relying on the status quo order of 1994.

He said the question “What constitutes an essential practice”; and “How it is to be established is a pure question of law and not amenable to res judicata (not a binding precedent). He said the test of essentiality is not “pilgrimage” which may be one desirable part. This is clearly an attempt to make a distinction between. Faiths that have pilgrimage in India and Faiths that have pilgrimage outside India.”

He said its effect is to make Islam and Christianity “outside” religions and unprotected in terms of essentiality. This is an invidious distinction made by divisive Hindu fundamentalists; All religions are protected equally under the Constitution. This attempt to distinguish between faiths is simply unacceptable and will tear apart India’s secular fabric, he maintained.