The court also asked Dhavan whether he wants security and protection, which he denied saying that the court assurance is enough for him.india Updated: Sep 12, 2019 14:37 IST
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi is holding a hearing of the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case. (Amal KS/HT PHOTO) Court lawyer.
Hearing Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute case on day-to-day to basis, the Supreme Court today took note of the submission of a lawyer, representing Muslim parties that he has been receiving threats. “This is not the right atmosphere conducive for hearing,” a five-judge Constitution bench said adding that these things should not happen in the court and “one word from your Lordship” will be enough on this.
This morning, when the bench assembled to commence hearing in the decades old politically sensitive case on 22nd day, senior lawyer Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Sunni Waqf Board and others, alleged that he has received a threat message on Facebook warning that “they will see him outside the court”.
Claiming that he was “under pressure”, Dhavan said that some people also messaged him asking which side he was on and whether he is against the deity (Ram).
Find a good lawyer
“This has to be deprecated. This is something which should not be happening,” the bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi said, adding that “both sides are free to put their arguments before court without any fear.”
The court also asked Dhavan whether he wants security and protection, which he denied saying that the court assurance is enough for him. Clarifying that he was not “arguing against Hindu faith”, Dhavan said he had been non-partisan when it comes to arguing a case, which he did while arguing Kashi and Kamakshya cases in past.
On August 8, a five-judge bench headed by CJI and including Justices D Y Chandrachud, S A Bobde, Ashok Bhushan and S A Abdul Nazeer, had said that it will hear the Ayodhya title dispute case five days in the week -- from Monday to Friday.
The court is hearing appeals against the September 30, 2010 verdict of the Allahabad High Court in the case.