NEW DELHI: Frequent interruptions of Hindu parties arguments coupled with constant reiteration of their stand by Muslim parties breached the Supreme Courts patience on Tuesday and the bench reprimanded their counsel while imploring all sides to stick to the schedule for conclusion of arguments on cross-appeals for ownership of the 2.77 acre Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land in Ayodhya.
When counsel for Muslim parties, senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan and Meenakshi Arora, constantly interrupted Hindu parties counsel, senior advocates K Parasaran and C S Vaidyanathan, a bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde, D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer said, “We are being told the same thing again and again as if there is no application of mind on this side (by the judges). This is no way to argue the case. It is impossible to complete arguments if it continues in this manner.”
This forced Dhavan to apologise. There was cacophony in the SCs biggest courtroom as Dhavan put the microphone to good use and attempted to drown Vaidyanathans arguments.
An irritated Vaidyanathan retaliated by increasing his pitch, magnified manifold by the microphone, to protest Dhavans constant interruptions. As a result, it became difficult to decipher who was saying what. The bench advised Vaidyanathan to switch off his microphone to help bring back sanity in the proceedings and said “it is adding to the problem”. Vaidyanathan complied and sanity returned.
The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) report concluding that there was a massive structure resembling north Indian temples directly beneath the disputed structure became the bone of contention between Hindu parties, who relied on it, and Muslim parties, who discarded it as mere conjecture on part of the archaeologists.
Vaidyanathan said Hindus had from time immemorial considered the disputed site the birthplace of Lord Ram and had a right over it, even though the mosque over it came into existence just 500 years ago. While dealing with the ASI report, he said the Sunni Waqf Boards argument that an Idgah existed beneath the Read More – Source
