E-Paper
Restrictions on prayers by Muslims since ’34, SC told
SC sends notice to professor for allegedly threatening Waqf board lawyer, to hear case after 2 weeks.
On the 18th day of the hearing in the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri Masjid land title case, the Muslim parties told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that Muslims were not allowed to offer prayers except on Fridays at the disputed site in Ayodhya after 1934.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who appeared for the Muslim parties, rebutted arguments of the Hindus side that Muslims never offered prayers at the Babri Masjid. “Hindus say they [Muslims] did not pray there. It is because you did not let them pray,” Dhavan said. He rejected the other side’s argument that Muslim’s claim to the title was barred by limitation.
Dhavan made the submissions before a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi hearing an appeal against the September 30, 2010, verdict of the Allahabad high court that ordered a three-way division of the disputed site spread over 2.77 acres. The bench also comprises Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer.
Dhavan’s assertion prompted Justice Bobde to ask: “As a matter of fact, was there any action taken by any Muslim who went there and was not allowed to pray.”
Dhavan said Muslims prayed in the inner courtyard of the mosque on Fridays. He added though the keys of the mosque were with the Muslims, police would allow it to be opened only on Friday when it was cleaned and prayers were offered.
He said the idols of Hindu deities were placed inside the central dome of the structure on the intervening night of December 22 and 23, 1949. Dhavan added the sequence of events established it was a “planned and surreptitious attack.” He contested the Hindu side’s version that the idols appeared at the place “swayambhoo [on their own]”.
“If the court accepts the swayambhoo argument, the Muslims get nothing,” he argued.
Justice Chandrachud recalled the argument offered by the counsel for Ram Lalla being a juridical person (legal identity) and asked Dhavan: “When a place assumes the character of a juridical person by virtue of birth of a deity or marriage of a deity, then would not the areas abutting the spot where the garlands were exchanged also become part of it?” “That is assuming Muslims were not praying there,” the senior counsel replied.
Earlier in the day, the court issued a notice on Dhavan’s contempt plea against an 88-year-old Chennai-resident, N Shanmugham, who allegedly threatened and cursed the senior advocate for taking up the case on behalf of Muslim parties. The court will hear the petition after two weeks.
Shanmugham’s son, S Gurunathan, said that his father is unwell and was not available to make any comments. “As my father is 88, he is not well. He cannot speak to anybody,” Gurunathan said while refusing to make any comments on the notice issued to his father.
