New Delhi: Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan on Tuesday reiterated his plea in the Supreme Court that the appeals relating to Ayodhya title suits need to be considered by a larger bench of five or seven judges to determine the correct application of constitutional principles, including whether offering namaz in mosque is not an essential and integral part of Islam.
Making his submissions before a three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and Abdul Nazeer, the senior advocate 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. He said the court had also taken a view that mosque need not be re-built at this site.
He said 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.
The High Court had observed that the sentiments of Hindus to offer worship should be recognised. Mr. Dhavan said as this 1994 verdict is binding on three-judges and if the same logic was followed, then mosque would never be constructed in the disputed site as this finding had already prejudiced their right.
He also referred to the recent decision of the apex court to refer the issue of polygamy to a five judge Constitution Bench.
