13.6 C
New Delhi
Wednesday 22 January 2020

Muslim side has a ‘teething’ problem in empanelling Dhavan

A Muslim party to the Ayodhya dispute might add Rajeev Dhavan subsequently, but they are ill at ease putting up with his intemperation

Advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who had represented the Muslim side in the Ayodhya dispute, has been removed from the case by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind. Dhavan has not been made a lawyer in the review petition filed by Jamiat on Monday.

Dhavan expressed anguish over the development in a post on Facebook. According to him, Maulana Arshad Madani indicated that he had been removed due to poor health. This, the senior advocate says, is “total nonsense”. He wrote, “I have been informed that Mr Madani has indicated that I was removed from the case because I was unwell. This is total nonsense. He has a right to instruct his lawyer AOR Ejaz Maqbool to sack me which he did on instructions. But the reason being floated is malicious and untrue.”

Rajeev Dhavan’s Facebook post

How Dhavan fought for the Muslim side

Senior advocate Dhavan had appeared on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board in the Ayodhya case. Lawyer Ejaz Maqbool said, “The issue is that my client, that is Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind, wanted to file a review petition tomorrow (Monday). This work was to be done by Rajeev Dhavan. He was not available so I could not name him at the petition. it’s not a big deal.”

There was a lot of uproar in the Supreme Court in the last phase of hearing of the Ayodhya case when Dhavan had torn a map of Ayodhya before the five-judge Constitution bench. After this, he also got into an argument with advocate of the Hindu Mahasabha Vikas Singh, which angered the then Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi. In the post-lunch hearing, Dhavan then explained, “I said that I want to tear it down. You (Chief Justice) said your wish!” Ranjan Gogoi nearly agreed to this, saying, “We said if you want to tear, you can tear.”

A Muslim party filed a review petition on Monday against the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Ram Mandir-Babri Masjid land dispute case. The petition filed by Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind president Maulana Syed Arshad Rashidi said that the Supreme Court’s decision to hand over the disputed 2.77 ac of land to Ram Lalla Virajman and give 5 ac of land for the mosque had several flaws.

The court admitted, according to the Jamiat, that it was wrong to demolish the mosque at the disputed site on 6 December 1992, yet the land was given to the Hindu party. For complete justice, the Babri Masjid should have been ordered to be rebuilt, Rashidi said.

Speaking to the media after filing the petition, Maulana Syed Arshad Madani said if the Supreme Court upheld its verdict on Ayodhya, Jamiat would accept it. At the same time, AIMPLB secretary Zafaryab Jilani said that the board would file a review petition before 9 December in this case.

What the fuss!

On 3 December, it so happened that when Dhavan was approached, he was reportedly seeing his dentist for some problem with his teeth. The petitioners allegedly used that as a ruse to get rid of him citing “health” reasons.

A source in the Jamiat said that the Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) or another Muslim party might make Dhavan their lawyer in a review petition subsequently but they are wary of him for “his penchant for making the wrong kind of noises like saying it’s always Hindus who disturb communal harmony in the country”. The Jamiat feels such statements are best avoided when a case involving the lawyer is going on in the court, the source said.

Stay on top - Get daily news in your email inbox

Sirf Views

Pandits: 30 Years Since Being Ripped Apart

Pandits say, and rightly so, that their return to Kashmir cannot be pushed without ensuring a homeland for the Islam-ravaged community for conservation of their culture

Fear-Mongering In The Times Of CAA

No one lived in this country with so much fear before,” asserted a friend while dealing with India's newly amended citizenship...

CAA: Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste

So said Winston Churchill, a lesson for sure for Prime Miniter Narendra Modi who will use the opposition's calumny over CAA to his advantage

Archbishop Of Bangalore Spreading Canards About CAA

The letter of Archbishop Peter Machado to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, published in The Indian Express, is ridden with factual inaccuracies

Sabarimala: Why Even 7 Judges Weren’t Deemed Enough

For an answer, the reader will have to go through a history of cases similar to the Sabarimala dispute heard in the Supreme Court

Related Stories

Leave a Reply

For fearless journalism

%d bloggers like this: