Syed Khalique Ahmed
New Delhi, September 4—The supreme Court has assured that it will take note of the assault on the life of Iqbal Ansari, one of the main litigants in the Babri Masjid-Ramjanmabhoomi dispute case.
The assurance was given by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi after Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing on behalf of the Muslim parties in the case brought it to the notice of the court during hearing on Wednesday. Iqbal Ansari lives in Ayodhya.
The accused persons were identified as Vartika Singh and Prabhu Dayal Singh, who have been apprehended by the police. The accused claimed to be residents of Lucknow. Ansari was attacked on Tuesday at his house in Ayodhya. He was, however, saved by his family members and two security personnel provided to him. The accused allegedly threatened to kill him if he did not withdraw the case from the Supreme Court.
The bench also told Dhavan that the court would also consider ordering protection for him as he had received threats for representing the Muslim parties. On this, Dhawan replied that he did not require any protection and the doors of his house remained open all the for 24 hours. The Supreme Court has already issued notice to one N. Shanmugham, a Chennai-based octogenarian professor, on a submission by Dhawan, alleging that Shanmughan had threatened him for representing the Muslim parties. In his submission before the court, Dhawan had attached a Whatsapp message that he received in connection with the threat.
Responding to questions raised by the rival parties in the dispute, Dhavan admitted that it was true that Nirmohi Akhada had a right to perform worship on “chabutara” in the courtyard of the Babri Masjid but it did not have the ownership right over the land. He also made it clear that the right of the Nirmohi Akhada’s priest on “chabutara” is only under the case filed in 1885 which was settled by the then highest court of the land. Besides this, Nirmohi Akhada has no right whatsoever.
Continuing his arguments, Dhavan said that as far as inner part of the mosque was concerned, the Hindu parties had never claimed their right over it and Muslims had always been offering “namaz” in the inner precincts. And the Muslims continued performing “namaz” till 1949 when the purity of the mosque was defiled by placing a statue and the mosque was subsequently locked.
Dhavan pleaded that despite the fact that Allahabad High Court had dismissed the case of Nirmohi Akhada, yet the high court made it (Nirmohi Akhada) owner of the one-third of the property in dispute. It is also a fact that Nirmohi Akhada had never demanded ownership right of the land. It had only demanded the right to perform “pooja” or worship on the “chabutara” and that too, for the first time, in 1934. And whatever relief the Akhada had demanded, was against the government and,not against the Muslims.
Arguing further, Dhavan said that after filing of the case by Nirmohi Akhada, no case could be filed on behalf of the idols of the Hindu deities because no two cases could be filed on the same subject matter.
As far as the issue pertaining to travelogues written by travellers like Tiffen Theller is concerned, Dhavan submitted that even Theller had considered “chabutara” as birthplace of Ram. He submitted that even if Theller’s travelogue was accepted to be true, then the claim of the Hindu parties on the Babri Masjid was quite baseless. Theller, Dhavan argued, also talked of “Chabutara” which was outside the mosque. And whatever evidences were produced excepting Theller’s by the Hindu parties, Dhavan said that the Allahabad High Court had not accepted them as evidence. To substantiate his arguments, Dhavan read out certain relevant portions of the Allahabad High Court judgement.
