In the The last day of hearing of the historic Ram Janmabhoomi – Babri Masjid land dispute case Muslims lawyer lost his temper and tore pepers in Supreme Court.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan lost his cool in the apex court as lawyer Vikas Singh, representing Hindu Mahasabha, sought to place an alleged historic map of the Ram Janmabhoomi site before the Constitution Bench. But Dhavan loudly interjected at this point and reportedly tore up the document stating that no new evidence can be admitted in court at such an advanced stage of the suit.
The unsavoury developments upset Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi also, who objected to the courtroom decorum being disturbed.
Gogoi had earlier taken a decisive view in the ongoing hearing of the Ayodhya land dispute case and said that the Supreme Court will finish hearing the matter today by 5 pm. Gogoi, visibly irked by the lawyer of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy who approached the bench with an urgent intervention, said, “Enough is enough. There is no more time for any intervention. All parties must finish their arguments by 5 pm today,” adding that nobody apart from the recognised parties in the case will be allowed to speak in the court today.
Gogoi’s comments came amid some confusion resulting from media reports that the Sunni Waqf Board was planning to withdraw its claim from India’s oldest title suit. However, later reports clarified that the waqf board has not yet made any such appeal to the bench.
The court is running a tight deadline to finish hearing the came, and to come up with judgment because the current CJI, also the head of the Constitution Bench, retires on 17 November. If the court fails to deliver a judgment before then, the entire matter will have to be heard afresh in front of a new judge as decided by the next Chief Justice of India.
The hearing in the case took place even as Section 144 of the CrPC, banning the assembly of four or more people, has been imposed in Ayodhya district and surrounding areas in Uttar Pradesh till 10 December, in anticipation of the judgment in the case.