Ruckus in SC as lawyers object to ‘Hindu Taliban’ comment by senior advocate Dhavan

Satya Prakash
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, July 20

The hearing in the Ayodhya case on Friday witnessed a high drama as a group of lawyers took strong exception to "Hindu Taliban" comments made by senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing a Muslim litigant, and asked him to take back his words.

As hearing began in the post-lunch session a little after 2 pm, a group of lawyers led by advocate Hari Shankar Jain created ruckus against Dhavan's last week's statement that "just as the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha, the Hindu Taliban destroyed the Babri Masjid”.

"You destroyed temples," Jain retorted, demanding Dhavan should take back his objectionable comment.

Dhavan stuck to "Hindu Taliban" remark, saying it was appropriate to describe the demolition. 

As one of the objecting lawyers, Kaushal Kishore, shouted at Dhavan and rushed towards him, security guards stopped him and escorted him out.

The din continued for almost 10 minutes, a three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said the adjective was used in an inappropriate sense.

"Such adjectives should be used outside, not inside the court," the CJI-led Bench, which also included Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer, said.

The Bench reserved its verdict on Muslim parties plea to send to a larger Bench its 1994 verdict that said mosque was not integral to Islam.

Amid controversy over Congress leader Shashi Tharoor’s statement that “India will become a ‘Hindu Pakistan’ if BJP returned to power in 2019”, Dhavan had on July 13 told the Supreme Court that Babri Masjid was destroyed by ‘Hindu Taliban’. 

“Just as the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddha, the Hindu Taliban destroyed the Babri Masjid,” Dhavan, representing one of the appellant M Siddiq had said. 

Dhavan tried to convince the Bench that the top court’s ruling in Ismail Fauruqui case should be referred to a larger Bench. The court had ruled in 1994 that mosque was not integral to Islam as Muslims could offer prayers anywhere.

Almost eight years after the Allahabad High Court’s September 30, 2010, order dividing the 2.7-acre disputed land at the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid site equally between Ram Lalla, Nirmohi Akhara and Sunni Wakf Board, the Supreme Court was expected to take up the cross-appeals filed by various parties.

However, it will first adjudicate on Muslim parties’ demand that the court’s ruling in Fauruqui case should be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration.

Hindus believe that Lord Ram was born in Ayodhya thousands of years ago. During Mughal emperor Babar’s rule, a mosque was constructed at the place in 1528 after destroying the temples existing there.

More than 70 years after the Faizabad Civil Court rejected its claim over Babri Masjid as a Shia Wakf, the Shia Central Waqf Board of UP had last year moved the Supreme Court to assert its claim over the disputed site.

Interestingly, the Special Leave Petition—which challenged a 1946 decision of the Faizabad Civil Court—said the Babri Masjid was built by demolishing a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya.

The RSS, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and BJP have been running a campaign for construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya. On December 6, 1992, kar sevaks of right-wing Hindu organisations demolished the disputed structure. Many BJP leaders, including LK Advani and Murali Manohar Joshi, are facing a criminal case in connection with the demolition.

But the civil dispute over 2.7 acres is a separate one that has been on since 1961 when the Sunni Wakf Board took the matter to court.