New Delhi: Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who argued for the Sunni Waqf Board in the Ayodhya land dispute case, will no longer be representing the Muslim side in the review plea that has been filed in the Supreme Court. The review plea challenges the 9 November apex court decision that has paved the way for a Ram Temple in the disputed site.
Dhavan took to Facebook to state that he was “sacked” from the Babri case and that he was no longer involved in the review. “Just been sacked from the Babri case by AOR (advocate-on-record) Ejaz Maqbool who was representing the Jamiat (Ulema-i-Hind),” Dhavan posted, adding, “Have sent a formal letter accepting the ‘sacking’ without demur. No longer involved in the review or the case.”
He also put out an official letter reiterating that he has graciously accepted the “sacking” and that “the cause was bigger than all of us”.
However, Maqbool, who had filed the review plea on behalf of M. Siddiq, the original Muslim litigant in the case, said Dhawan’s unavailability was the reason his name was not included in the plea.
“Maulana Arshad Madani (president of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind) wanted to file the petition yesterday (Monday),” Maqbool said. “But Dhavan was not available yesterday; he was at the dentist’s clinic. So his name was removed from the petition.”
Even Madani, who held a press conference after filing the review plea, evaded questions on Dhavan saying the senior lawyer was “undergoing a tooth surgery”.
Dhavan, however, hit back saying any such reason was “malicious” and “untrue”.
“I have been informed that Mr Madani has indicated that I was removed from the case because I was unwell. This is total nonsense,” Dhavan wrote on social media again. “He has a right to instruct his lawyer AOR Ejaz Maqbool to sack me, which he has done on instructions. But the reason being floated is malicious and untrue.”
Also read: Will the AIMPLB’s review petition on Ayodhya verdict help or hurt Muslims?
AIMPLB wants Dhavan to represent it
Sources in the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), however, maintained that Dhavan’s dismissal is from the Jamiat plea but not from the Muslim side altogether. “Even AIMPLB will file a review and we want Rajeev Dhavan to represent us,” said a member of the board.
AIMPLB’s Zafaryab Jilani and other members are slated to visit Dhavan at his residence Tuesday. Maulana Umrain of AIMPLB said the board was indebted to Dhavan for representing the Muslims.
“We are indebted to the senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan for his sincere exceptional and incomparable efforts in the Babri Masjid case,” Umrain said. “We hope that he would represent us again when the review petition is filed. Adv. Ejaz Maqbool’s behaviour is saddening.”
The Jamiat’s stand is also raising eyebrows as lawyers acquainted with the matter said Dhavan was to appear for all the Muslim parties and that they had “joint consultations to”.
“During the last stages of consultations, Jamiat decided to file an independent plea whereas Dhavan had suggested going for it together. Suddenly his name was dropped by advocate Maqbool though the draft was finalised by the senior lawyer,” said a lawyer privy to the meetings.
Also read: AIMPLB’s Ayodhya review petition will be futile. Muslims must accept verdict gracefully
A lawyer under fire
Dhavan has been under fire for representing the Muslim side in the case. He has stated in interviews that he had received multiple death threats during the hearing and that excreta was thrown outside his residence. He has, however, maintained that he appeared not only for Muslims in the case but also for liberal Hindus.
During the hearing too, the senior advocate had moved a contempt petition in the Supreme Court seeking action against a Chennai resident who allegedly threatened him for appearing for the Muslim parties to the Ayodhya dispute.
A certain Shanmugam, who claims to be educational advisor with the Sri Satya Sai Institute of Education, Chennai, wrote a letter cursing him for appearing for the Muslims.
Later, an unconditional apology by him led to termination of the contempt proceedings.
On the 22nd day of Ayodhya hearing in September, the senior lawyer had alleged that he received a threat message on Facebook, and that his clerk was also threatened by a few other people on the Supreme Court premises.
Also read: Muslim law board’s move to file review plea against Ayodhya verdict splits community