The Farooqi judgment, Mr Dhawan contended, was bad in law. Land, he said, can be acquired only in extraordinary situation and in national interest.He questioned what was the national interest here-Bharatiya Janata Party and its patriarch Lal Krishna Advani's agenda?Submitting his arguments before a bench of Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and Justices Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer, Mr Dhawan argued that the court cannot discriminate between religions and places of worship. A mosque, he contended, was as important as a temple. Mr Dhawan added, ''Court allowed puja in temporary temple at the site but refused to allow Namaz.''
Advancing his submissions, Mr Dhawan said, mosques were not the only religious practice place among the Muslims, they also prayed in open. Appearing for the original plaintiff in the case, the senior advocate argued that the matter should be referred to a larger five-judge bench because a 1994 Supreme Court judgment in Ismail Farooqi case had made an illegal comment that mosques were not integral to prayer by Muslims.Mr Dhawan's arguments will continue on April 6, Friday.
The Supreme Court had on March 14 had rejected 32 applications by eminent persons, including Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen, Anil Dharkar and Teesta Setalvad, who had sought to argue the Ram Janambhoomi-Babri masjid dispute case.In 2010, the Allahabad High Court had divided the 2.77 acre disputed land equally between three parties - deity Ram Lalla, Sunni Wakf Board and Nirmohi Akhara. The appeals against the ruling had been pending in the Supreme Court since the past eight years.(UNI)