Ayodhya dispute: Supreme Court judge opts out of case, hearing put off till January 29

New Delhi: Justice UU Lalit, one of the five judges of the Supreme Court constitution bench hearing the Ayodhya case, offered to opt out after a lawyer pointed out that he had represented one of the parties nearly two decades ago. The Supreme Court will now hear the Ayodhya case on January 29. A new bench will be constituted before the next hearing.

The five judges were expected to work out a date and schedule for the hearings. But before it could do that, senior lawyer Rajeev Dhawan, who is representing one of the parties, pointed that Justice UU Lalit had appeared in a contempt case to the Ayodhya dispute. In this case, former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Kalyan Singh was sent to one-day jail. Dhawan said that though he did not have any objection, it was for Justice Lalit to take a call.

Dhawan did regret bringing up this information to the court’s notice but Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi underlined there was no need to be sorry as he is simply asserting a fact. Justice Lalit said he had appeared for one of the contemnors and offered to opt out of the case.

Harish Salve, who was appearing for Ram Lalla, said he completely supported Rajeev Dhawan, recalling that the contempt arose for the breach of orders passed in a writ petition as the then Chief Minister had failed to maintain status quo at the site. “These are civil suits. I don’t think it should be a problem,” he said.

The Chief Justice said it is not a question of anyone having a problem. “The point is it was mentioned to us. So Justice Lalit is of the view that it won’t be correct for him to participate,” the CJI said.

Dhawan also referred to what he described as speculation over the Chief Justice Gogoi’s order to constitute a five-judge constitution bench by an administrative order when a Supreme Court bench headed by former CJI Dipak Misra had, in a judicial order, rejected a request to send the case to a five-judge bench.

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said the Supreme Court rules provided for a Chief Justice of India nominating a bench keeping in mind the importance of the case. Therefore, to set up a constitution bench for hearing this dispute is in no way contrary to the earlier three-judge bench order that had declined to send the title suit to a larger bench, the bench said.

The case is pending before the apex court since 2010 when 14 cross-appeals were filed against the Allahabad high court’s 2010 judgement dividing the 2.77 acre land equally among the three parties - the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, a Hindu religious denomination, and Ram Lalla, or infant Ram, represented by the Hindu Mahasabha - for the construction of a Ram temple.

The Supreme Court was originally supposed to hear the case in October, but deferred this to January, rejecting the Uttar Pradesh government’s plea for speedy hearings with CJI Gogoi saying the court had its “own priorities”

The postponement had led to demands from several right-wing groups affiliated to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party for a law or executive order to facilitate the building of a Ram temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a recent interview that his government would wait for the courts to rule on the case.

Taking up the case on January 4, a bench comprising CJI Ranjan Gogoi and justice SK Kaul, in a 10 second hearing that gave lawyers on both sides no opportunity to address the court, that a new three-judge bench which will be formed by the CJI before January 10 to hear the case and pass any further orders on the land dispute in Ayodhya.

However, on Tuesday, CJI Gogoi announced the setting up of a five member bench, which also comprises justices SA Bobde, NV Ramana, UU Lalit and DY Chandrachud - all potentially the next four chief justices of India.

The setting up of a five-judge bench is significant because last year, the Supreme Court rejected the demand of Muslim parties to refer the Ayodhya title dispute to larger bench. That demand came in the context of its own observations in an earlier judgement by five judges in the 1994 Ismail Faruqui case where it was held that a mosque is not an essential part of the practice of the religion of Islam and namaz by Muslims can be offered anywhere, even in the open.