New Delhi: In deciding to continue with the day-to-day hearing of the politically sensitive Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case, the Supreme Court on Friday snubbed the counsel for the Muslim party royally that was looking for excuses to delay the conclusion of the case, as not only faith but also evidence is working in favour of the Hindu side, believes practising lawyer of the apex court Amitabh Sinha.
“Ram Lalla’s victory is almost certain,” Sinha said. “It is not speculation. It is my analysis of the circumstantial evidence. When the chief justice said that the hearing would be conducted on all the five working days of the week to resolve this issue, the Muslim side started resisting the move,” he said.
“Which means they have lost the case,” Sinha asserted while thanking the divine. “It was because of the Hindu belief that so many worked for the cause and the case has reached this far,” he said, adding, “Legally also, the Mandir side stands on a firm footing. Both circumstantial evidence and documentary evidence are strong.”
Sinha referred to the proceedings of the court wherein it addressed the objections raised by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing the Muslim parties including M Siddiq and All India Sunni Waqf Board, that it will not be possible for him to take part in the proceedings on all five working days of the week. “We will continue day-to-day hearing as ordered earlier,” the five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi had said at the fag end of the fourth day’s proceedings in the case in which senior lawyer K Parasaran, appearing for deity Ram Lalla Virajman (the Hindu side), put forth his submissions.
Sinha said the Muslim party to the dispute was aware of their imminent loss. “Their only strategy is to prolong the case so that their dukandaari can continue,” he said. Explaining what he meant by dukandaari, the Supreme Court lawyer said these people collect donations, ask for grants, etc in the name of the so-called Islamic cause in defending the Babri structure. “Case haar gaye to yeh sab dukandaari band ho jaayegi unki (if they lose the case, this business they have made out of the case will come to an end),” Sinha said.
Sinha referred to the desperation of the Muslim side where Dhavan had pleaded that it will be “inhuman” and “practically impossible” for him to prepare his case if the apex court stuck to its decision to hear the land dispute case from Monday to Friday every week till the conclusion.
Sinha noted that, as soon as the counsel for the deity commenced advancing arguments, Dhavan intervened and objected to the five-days-a-week hearing of the case, saying he will “not be able to assist” the court if the hearing is “rushed through”. “It is not possible to assist the court if it is heard on all days of the week. This is the first appeal and the hearing cannot be rushed in this manner and I am put to the torture,” Dhavan had said, Sinha reminded.
In fact, Dhavan had said that if the court had decided to hear the case on all five days of the week, he might have to leave the case! The apex court was hearing first appeals after the Allahabad High Court delivered the verdict in the case and the hearing as such cannot be rushed through, he said. Being a ‘first appeal’, the documentary evidence has to be studied, Dhavan had stated. He even cast aspersions on the bench when he said, “Perhaps, except Justice Chandrachud, other judges might not have read the judgment (Allahabad High Court’s).”
The pressure by Dhavan was relentless. When CJI Gogoi told Dhavan in the forenoon, “We have taken note of your submissions. We will revert to you soon,” Dhavan wanted to now as to when the decision will be taken. The bench said “soon” and later, while wrapping the day’s proceedings, the bench said that it would stick to its decision to hold the day-to-day hearing in the case, assuring him that it would consider granting him mid-week breaks.
Moved a bit, however, the court assured the counsel for Muslim parties of mid-week breaks for preparing arguments, if needed. The bench, also comprising Justices SA Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, has fixed the Ayodhya case hearing for next Tuesday. The court is off next Monday on account of Eid.
Hindu side in the meantime
Parasaran responded to the Supreme Court’s query as to how the ‘Janmasthanam’ (the birthplace of deity) can be regarded as a “juristic person” having stakes as a litigant in the case. To a Hindu, the idol is not necessary for a place to be regarded as a temple, he argued, adding “Hindus do not worship gods in any definite form, rather they worship them as divine incarnation having no form.”
Referring to Hindu religious texts, Parasaran said that one such example was Kedarnath temple where there is no idol of any deity. Hence, there is no need of any idol for terming a place as a temple, having the character of “juristic” person capable to own properties and institute lawsuits, he said.
The Hindu community started worshipping Lord Ram even before the idol was installed and the temple was built, Parasaran said. “The deity is treated as a living being and is considered the master of the house,” he said.