The matter is being heard by the chief bench comprising of Chief Justice of Indian Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer on 14 appeals filed against the high court judgment delivered in four civil suits.
The Shia Waqf Board told the Supreme Court on Friday that it wished to settle the matter of the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple dispute in Ayodhya amicably. However, a lawyer for one of the appellants reportedly argued that the board had no locus to speak in the case.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Dhawan, appearing for M Siddiq — an appellant in the suit who has died but is represented through his legal heir — argued that just as the Taliban had destroyed the Buddha statues in Bamiyan in Afghanistan, the ‘Hindu Taliban’ had destroyed the Babri Masjid, reported ANI.
The matter is being heard by the bench comprising of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice S Abdul Nazeer. The apex court will continue hearing the matter on July 20.
In its submissions, the Shia Waqf Board said they wished to settle the dispute amicably. The board also stated that the custodian of the Babri mosque was the Shia and the Sunni Waqf Board, and no one else represents India’s Muslims.
On the question of whether the disputed matter should be heard by a Constitution Bench, the Shia Waqf Board submitted that it is ready to relinquish its claim in national interest, and the matter need not be referred to the Constitution Bench.
In May, the Supreme Court heard submissions from Hindu groups that had opposed the plea by Muslim groups seeking that the matter be heard by a larger bench.