India has moved forward from 1992 Babri Masjid demolition: Hindu bodies to SC

The Hindu bodies fighting a legal battle to stake claim over the disputed site in Ayodhya today told the Supreme Court that it was purely a property dispute which should not be referred to a larger bench.

The top court was told that the issue of "political or religious sensitivity" cannot be a ground to refer the matter to a larger bench and India has moved forward since the 1992 demolition of the Babri Masjid.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer was told by senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for original plaintiff Gopal Singh Visharad who was among the first to file a civil suit in the case way back in 1950, that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench since a three-judge bench was already seized of it.

"This country has moved forward from the event of 1992 and today we are left with purely a land dispute. The court will decide this on the evidence placed before it. This will be decided strictly in accordance with the law," Salve said.

He questioned the manner in which senior advocates Rajeev Dhavan and Raju Ramachandran, appearing for petitioner M Siddiq, were projecting the case as "sensitive".

Gopal Singh Visharad and M Siddiq, both original litigants in Ram Janambhoomi- Babri Masjid case, have died and are being represented through legal heirs.

Ramachandaran had said the matter should be referred to a larger bench due to its "sheer importance". He had said that it had been dealt with by the full bench of the high court, not because of a substantial question of law, but due to the fact that it would have wide ramifications on the social fabric of the country.

Earlier, the apex court had said it would decide on whether to refer to a larger bench the issue of reconsideration of the entire 1994 verdict dealing with the acquisition of the disputed land in Ayodhya or parts of it.

However, Salve maintained that factors like "politically sensitive, religiously sensitive" should be kept out of the court room. "These (issues) are all those things which should be kept outside the gate of the court," he said, adding that the matter was a title suit which would be adjudicate on whether the property belongs to 'A' or 'B'.

Referring to the apex court traditions and said if an order is passed by the full court of a high court, the appeal in the apex court would be heard by a three-judge bench.

Salve referred to the 'triple talaq' case which was heard by a five-judge constitution bench, and said a larger bench had adjudicated the issue as it related to the important aspect of gender justice.

Questioning the approach of Dhavan and Ramachandran in saying that this was a matter of "sheer importance", he said "the cases which were sent to a five-judge or seven-judge bench have raised very serious questions."