Ayodhya hearing: Miscreants can’t claim ownership say Muslims parties in SC

New Delhi, Sep 04: The Muslim parties relied on a Supreme Court judgment that called those who demolished the Babri Masjid as miscreants.

During the hearing in the Ayodhya case, the Muslim parties said that miscreants cannot claim ownership over the 2.77 acres disputed land.

The miscreants had planned and placed idols inside the Mosque on the night of December 22, 1949. They harassed Muslims to dissuade them from offering namaz regularly, senior counsel, Rajeev Dhawan argued. Can these actions of the miscreants be taken as a new ground by the Hindus to claim ownership, he sought to know.

In 1994, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had said that those who had demolished the Mosque had no religion, caste or creed except the character of a criminal and the mere incident of birth of such a person in any particular community cannot attach the stigma of his crime to the community in which he was born.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court sought responses from two persons for allegedly threatening senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan for taking up the case on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter.

"Notice," said the five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi at the start of hearing on the 18th day in the land dispute case.

The Bench has put up contempt pleas for hearing after two weeks.

Dhavan had filed a contempt petition against two persons, N Shanmugam, a retired education officer, and a Rajasthan resident, Sanjay Kalal Bajrangi, for allegedly threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties.

Dhavan, who appeared for lead petitioner M Siddiq and the All India Sunni Waqf Board, had said that he received a letter on August 14, 2019, from Shanmugam, threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties.

Dhavan had said in the plea that he has also received a WhatsApp message from Bajrangi, which was also an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice before the court.

He had alleged that he has been accosted both at home and in the court premises.

The plea said that by sending the letter the alleged contemnor has committed criminal contempt because "he is intimidating a senior advocate who is appearing for a party/parties before the court and discharging his duties as a senior advocate and he ought not to have sent such a letter."

"Exercise suo motu powers under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act taking cognisance of the criminal contempt on the basis of facts placed on record against contemnor/opposite party for committing criminal contempt," the plea said.