Politics, threats and un-parliamentary behaviour prevailed in the proceedings of the case.
It was 5 December 2017, when a three-member bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, was present for its first hearing of the high profile Sri Ram Janmabhumi case pending for over 70 years in the District Court, High Court and Supreme Court. Earlier on 11 August, the court had ordered all the parties to submit their respective documents on time. At 2 pm on 5 December, as soon as the bench constituted under the chairmanship of CJI Dipak Misra started the hearing in a packed court room, with senior advocates on record, litigants, defendants and appellants, etc., all in position to put forth their sides, and when on behalf of Sri Ramlala Virajman, senior advocates K.K. Parasharan, C.S. Vaidyanathan and Harish Salve started to present their side, the other side started causing disruption. Former Union Law Minister and senior Congress leader, advocate Kapil Sibal, and advocates Dushyant Dave and Dr Rajeev Dhavan tried to frustrate the proceedings by getting in its way one after another. When the judges asked all of them to let the hearing continue, the obstructionists turned them down and said that if the judges did not stop the hearing, they would boycott the court.
These advocates, appearing for the Muslim parties, said that the hearings should start only after the 2019 general elections as else these might benefit the BJP. It would have serious consequences and would harm the communal fabric of the country. And instead of a three-member bench, only a five or seven-member bench should hear it. As the date of retirement of the CJI was nearing, the case could not be heard in full during his tenure. They delayed the matter through excuses and used tactics to buy time by seeking translations of thousands of pages of documents in different languages. On the top of it, former Law Minister and Congress leader Kapil Sibal even threatened the court that if their demands were not met, they would boycott the court. Thus, politics, threats and un-parliamentary behaviour prevailed in the first day’s hearing of a case, which was pending for seventy years in the Apex Court of the country.
Just two days later, on 7 December, in yet another case, the Supreme Court had to give a direct warning to these “senior advocates”. The bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, “Lawyers are called the ministers of justice. They are also referred to as officers of the court. But unfortunately, a small group of lawyers raise their voice. They must understand absolutely clearly that raising their voice is not going to be tolerated. Raising the voice means either the lawyer is incompetent to present the case or he is inadequately prepared with the case.”
On another day the CJI said, “…Behaviour of the senior counsel was atrocious yesterday. Day before yesterday (in Ayodhya case), it was even more atrocious.” “This is not the tradition of the bar. If the bar does not regulate, we will be compelled to regulate.”
Even after such behaviour, Rajiv Dhawan threatened not to practice in the court. In his letter to the CJI, he alleged that he was “humiliated” in court. However, when the court did not take his words seriously, he resumed hearings in the court.
When the Hon’ble SC neutralised the threats, the “shouting brigade” tried to mobilise its political power to try and even impeach CJI Dipak Misra and divide the senior most judges in two factions. The press conference by the senior most judges in the SC premises was also not only unfortunate but created a new history in our judiciary. When the matter of impeachment came before Parliament and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha, rejected it, the brigade attacked the Vice-President too.
When the new Chief Justice, Justice Ranjan Gogoi took charge and constituted a bench for the hearing, questions were raised on the judges’ connections, religion and on the composition of the bench. They said why there was not a Muslim judge on the bench. A judge withdrew from the bench and got replaced by a Muslim judge. There was also a lot of commentary on the names of the mediators appointed by the Supreme Court.
The new bench had also witnessed many interruptions, misbehaviour, allegations of partiality etc., forcing the court to stop the proceedings midway. Advocate Rajeev Dhavan said to the bench that if they kept hearing the case continuously it would be “inhuman” and “impractical”. On 9 August, on the fourth consecutive hearing, Dhawan threatened that if the bench hurried on with the hearing, he would not be able to cooperate with the court, and then said that he could not afford that “torture” and would leave the case. He asked the Hon’ble Judges, “Why do you ask questions only to us?” There were attempts to attack Hindu religious texts, gods and sentiments. On the 40th and the last day of the continuous hearings an advocate tore to shreds the holy map of Sri Ram Janmabhumi in the packed court room, right in front of the Constitution Bench and the CJI. He would never ever dare to do it to any Muslim document or religious paper.
The hearing in the Sri Ram Janmabhumi case has exposed those who are proactive in trying to gatecrash the system to put pressure on our great judiciary. However, justice has already been delivered. But the disturbed proceedings raise many questions. Not even a single case of such misbehaviour was noticed from anyone other than those representing the Babri parties. Why was it so frequent?
The country is proud of its judicial system, its patience, wisdom and courage to deal with any eventuality. The top court had achieved its goal in the last two years, outmanoeuvring and outwitting ruckus, strikes and conspiracies. But it is now the duty of the Bar Council and all those belonging to the legal fraternity to decide against those who are going against the ethics and values of the great profession of law.
Vinod Bansal is the national spokesperson of the Vishva Hindu Parishad and is on Twitter as @vinod_bansal