The son of one of the main litigants in the Ram Janam Bhumi-Babri Masjid land dispute has written to the Supreme Court raising objections to BJP leader Subramanian Swamy seeking urgent hearing in the case without informing all the parties concerned. Mohammad Hashim Ansari’s son has written to the Secretary General of the apex court that time and again the Rajya Sabha MP mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India without even informing the Advocate On Record including the lawyer who has been appearing for his father. Ansari, one of the oldest litigant in the Ayodhya dispute, had died in July last year due to heart-related ailments at the age of 95. He was first to file the suit in the court of civil judge of Faizabad on the matter.
“It was reported by media that Dr Subramanian Swamy had mentioned the matters on March 21, 2017 for its day to day hearing before this court(Chief Justice of India). It is submitted that the above proceedings arise out of original suit and in none of the aforesaid suits Dr Swamy is a party…. “On earlier occasions also, Dr Swamy has made oral mentioning of the matter and despite request, has not informed the concerned AORs about the mentioning stating that he is not obliged to inform. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, I wish to place on record my objection to such mentioning of the matter by Dr Swamy without informing all the concerned AORs,” said the letter from Ansari’s son Iqbal.
On March 21, the top court had suggested an out-of-court settlement of the lingering dispute at Ayodhya, observing that issues of “religion and sentiments” can be best resolved through talks. Chief Justice J S Khehar had also offered to mediate even as the bench headed by him suggested that the parties to the dispute adopt a “give a bit and take a bit” approach for a meaningful and sincere negotiations to resolve the issue. The observations were made after Swamy mentioned the matter seeking urgent hearing, saying that it has been over six years after the High Court decided the civil appeal and that it needed to be heard at the earliest.
The BJP Parliamentarian had told the court that he had approached the Muslim community members who favoured judicial decision in the contentious matter. The Lucknow bench of Allahabad High Court, in 2010, had ruled for a three-way division of the disputed 2.77 acres area at the site in Uttar Pradesh. The three-judge bench, by a majority of 2:1, had said the land be partitioned equally among three parties, Sunni Waqf Board, Nirmohi Akhara and the ‘Ram Lalla’ (nascent Lord Ram).