Summary of Day 7 Arguments (27th April 2018)

Today, Mr. Raju Ramchandran appearing for the Wakf Board started the 7th day of arguments in the Ayodhya Title dispute. He began by requesting the bench to refer the case to a 5 judge bench. He emphasised on the special nature of the case and urged that it must be looked by a constitutional bench. He said that it cannot be seen as a simple ‘title dispute’ case. 

Mr. Harish Salve, representing the respondents argued that the case should be decided as a ‘title’ dispute which can be decided by this 3 judge bench. He said that court should not factor in the politics and religious sensitivities and hear it like a normal title dispute. He said that there is no larger ‘constitutional question’ which merits referral to a constitutional bench.

Mr. K. Parasaran echoed Mr. Salve’s argument to say that time of the court is important and the hearing should continue under the present 3 judge bench. He said that the case involves admissibility of evidence which can best be done by a 3 judge bench. He referred to the long-standing nature of dispute going back to 1858 and it should be decided expediently without any delaying tactics. Mr. Ramchandran responded that referring the case as a title dispute is akin to living in denial. This case goes at the heart of our constitutional ethos and must be decided by a constitutional bench.

The matter has been posted to be heard on 15th May 2018.

                                                    (This post relies on inputs from Ms. Ashrutha Rai)