Objection of AIMPLB about absence of Muslim Judge on bench is disturbing: Alok Kumar

New Delhi, Jan 10: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has said that what has happened in the Supreme Court on January 10, 2019 is exactly that the organisation has been raising doubt about all this while. There are certain elements that have been been resorting to the tactics of the delaying the Ram Janmabhoomi and Babri Mosque matter to remain undecided till the infinite time period. The hearing of Ram Janmabhoomi appeal has been adjourned yet again for January 29, 2019.

VHP spokesperson Vinod Bansal told Oneindia, "A bigger bench was constituted and senior most judges were made part of the bench but no one will once again act like Congress leader Kapil Sibal was not guaranteed. If the Supreme Court fails to stop elements with delaying tactics in the court matters then the case is here to remain undecided till infinity."

Bansal said, "After the bench was announced Iqbal Ansari - the Muslim party in the case asked the very first question that why there is no Muslim judge in the bench. It will be demanded that some Muslim judge must be in it. Similar argument in a bit refined manner was presented by the Congress-sponsored lawyers including Rajeev Dhavan indirectly that UU Lalit contested the case of Kalyan Singh and court succumbed to their pressure."

So for the VHP it is an attempt to replace him with a Muslim judge in the Constitution bench. Bansal said, "Three things are done with this that Jihadi elements have been able to question the supreme authority of the Supreme Court in matter of deciding the bench. They have also succeeded in their delaying tactics on the matter once again. They have proved that let Hindus be majority in the country and Ram being the most revered figure but things will happen the way they wish to with the help of Congress."

The VHP accused that the Congress initiated the matter and now they are not in the front but they are ensuring the matter gets delayed as per their wish. "They have once again succeeded in intimidating the supreme court," said Bansal.

International working president of the VHP Alok Kumar said, "Our apprehensions that the opposite party shall raise any frivolous issues to secure an adjournment have come true. The objection that a judicial order should have been passed for the constitution of a five judge bench is apparently frivolous; for it is settled that the honourable Chief Justice of India is the master of roster. He alone decides the strength of a bench and the judges to sit in it."

Alok Kumar said that the other objection on Justice U U Lalit being on the bench is painful. Justice Lalit has never appeared in the Ram Janmabhoomi matters; neither at the trial stage nor in the appeal. His being Counsel of Kalyan Singh in 1997 in the contempt matter casts no shadow on his hearing the present appeals. The objections were merely ploys to delay further.

Moreover, an adjournment from January 10 to January 29 is rather too long. Hindus are known for their patience and forbearance. The judicial system still has the responsibility of deciding the matters without undue delays. The country hopes that the Chief Justice, heading the present bench shall decisively act to prevent the delaying tactics of the opposite party.

He added, "We have seen the objections by two members of Muslim Personal Law Board about the absence of any Muslim Judge on the bench is disturbing. It would be a very sad day when the judges would be assigned to hear matters on the basis of their religion. In this case, the bench had been constituted with rational criteria that is the Judges who would become Chief Justice of Supreme Court during their tenure. The attempt of forum shopping is to be condemned."