Ayodhya, LS polls not linked: Supreme Court

New Delhi: Amid high drama and demands for deferring the hearing of appeals in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid title dispute till after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the Supreme Court on Tuesday posted the matter for final hearing on February 8, 2018.

A batch of 13 appeals have been file in the apex court against the 2010 Allahabad high court verdict over the disputed 2.77 acre site in Ayodhya, granting two-thirds of the land to Hindus and one-third to Muslims.

After a 90-minute preliminary hearing, a special bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, expressed “shock and surprise” at the request made by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Sunni Central Wakf Board (UP), that the appeals should be heard in July 2019, after the Lok Sabha polls in May that year.

The bench refused to defer the hearing till then and also rejected the plea to refer the matter to a five or seven judge bench.

Seeking a postponement till July 2019, Mr Sibal said, “Please don’t rush through the hearing, defer it till July 2019. I hope this court understands what is happening outside the country… BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy had gone on record saying that Ram temple would be built before 2019 through legal means. They want to make it as an election manifesto and the court should not fall into the trap.” He said, “Please fix the matter in July 2019 and we assure that we will not seek any adjournments... Justice should not only be done, it should seem to be done.”

The CJI told Mr Sibal, “We are not concerned about what is being spoken or said outside… For us it is a property title suit. We will strictly go by legal issues.”

Justice Bhushan said, “In August you wanted the appeals to be heard in January and we clearly told you that today is fixed for statement of facts. Now you are telling us that we should hear after July 2019. You are making it as a non-serious issue.” 

On some counsel complaining about non-availability of all the documents, the court asked the Advocates on Record of appeals to sit together and ensure that all the requisite documents are translated, filed and numbered.

Advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, representing other  appellants, said that the dispute was not just any other civil suit but probably the most important case in the history of India which would “decide the future of the polity”. 

Earlier, Mr Dave sought a hearing by a seven-judge bench and said that in 1994 a five-judge Constitution Bench had categorically stated that a “mosque is not an essential part of Islam and Muslims can do their prayer anywhere”.

He said that the court had also taken a view that a mosque need not be re-built at the site. As this verdict is binding on the present three-judges, he said. At one stage, when the bench allowed senior counsel C.S. Vaidyanathan, appearing for Bhagwan Shri Ram Virajman, to address the statement of facts, Mr Sibal, Mr Dhavan and Mr Dave sought permission to leave the court as they objected to the procedure being followed, but they were persuaded by the court not to leave.

When CJI expressed shock and surprise at the insinuations, Mr Dhavan conceded that his choice of words was wrong.

Mr Sibal pointed out that various exhibits and documents have not been filed and counsel required more time to go through the 90,000 pages of records.