NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled out intervention by parties not involved in the original suits relating to ownership of the Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi plot, acquired by the Centre shortly after the mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992.

Senior advocate Salman Khurshid made an impassioned plea before a bench headed by CJI Dipak Misra and sought intervention by a body of Muslims from UP. But the bench was categorical in its reply, “These are appeals against the high court judgment on title suits and all parties are present before us. Where is the question of intervention or impleadment by non-parties?”

The court’s observation could have a bearing on an application by 32 eminent persons, including Shyam Benegal, Aparna Sen, Anil Dharker, Teesta Setalvad, who have sought to intervene in the Ayodhya case through advocate Aparna Bhat.

The applicants refuted the HC finding that a belief existed among a majority of the Hindu community that the disputed property was the birthplace of Lord Rama and said, “There is no basis on which such a finding could be sustained.”

They added, “In light of the various other places within Ayodhya laying claim of being the birthplace of Lord Rama, it is categorically stated that majority of Hindus do not espouse the belief that the disputed property is the birthplace of Lord Rama.”

When SC changed its order four times

The SC bench struggled to give a gentleman’s cloak to the belligerent arguments of senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, who was seeking adjournment of the hearing. Each time the court recorded a few sentences narrating Dhavan’s arguments, senior advocate Kapil Sibal would intervene and persuade the court not to record it. After four such attempts, Sibal succeeded and the court dropped references to Dhavan’s arguments in its order.

Swamy watches proceedings in silence

In March, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy had requested a bench headed by the then CJI J S Khehar for an early hearing in the Ayodhya case. The listing of the Ayodhya case at Swamy’s request riled Sibal, Dhavan and Dushyant Dave, who questioned the hurry in getting the seven-year-old case listed at the behest of a non-party. The senior advocates accused BJP of having the agenda of constructing Ram temple in Ayodhya. But an otherwise irrepressible Swamy watched the proceedings from the front row in silence.

Dhavan gets belligerent

“Is this a democratic and secular country where a mosque can be demolished?” Dhavan asked. His belligerence was calmed when the court attempted to mention it in its order. Dhavan apologised and said his choice of words was wrong.