Ayodhya hearing| SC issues notice to 2 for threatening senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan

Supreme Court: The 5-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and SA Bobde, Dr. DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ has sought responses from two persons for allegedly threatening senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan for taking up the case on behalf of the Sunni Waqf Board and other Muslim parties in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid land dispute matter.

The bench has put up contempt pleas for hearing after two weeks.

Dhavan had filed contempt petition against two persons, N Shanmugam, a retired education officer, and a Rajasthan resident, Sanjay Kalal Bajrangi, for allegedly threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties. Dhavan, who appeared for lead petitioner M Siddiq and the All India Sunni Waqf Board, had said that he received a letter on August 14, 2019 from Shanmugam, threatening him for appearing for Muslim parties. He had said in the plea that he has also received a WhatsApp message from Bajrangi, which was also an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice before the Court. He has also alleged that he has been accosted both at home and in the court premises.

The plea said that by sending the letter the alleged contemnor has committed criminal contempt because “he is intimidating a senior advocate who is appearing for a party/parties before the apex court and discharging his duties as a senior advocate and he ought not to have sent such a letter.”

“Exercise suo motu powers under Article 129 of the Constitution of India and Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act taking cognisance of the criminal contempt on the basis of facts placed on record against contemnor/opposite party for committing criminal contempt,”

(Source: PTI)


More from the day-to-day hearing in Ayodhya Title Dispute:

SC slams Nirmohi Akhara for opposing Ram Lalla’s plea; Says you ‘stand’ or ‘fall’ together

No Muslim has entered the disputed land since 1934: Nirmohi Akhara

SC seeks evidence of possession of Ramjanmabhumi from Nirmohi Akhara

Both Hindus & Muslims have always called the disputed site a ‘Janmasthana’: Ram Lalla’s counsel

SC rejects Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan’s plea against 5-days a week hearing

Arguments advanced on whether there was an existing temple at the disputed site

Court shouldn’t go beyond rationality of belief of Ayodhya being Lord Ram’s birthplace: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Excavations show that a massive Lord Ram temple existed at the disputed site: Ram Lalla’s counsel

Babri Masjid was built either on the ruins of Ram Mandir or by pulling it down: Ram Lalla’s counsel

There was a temple in the inner courtyard of the disputed site: Nirmohi Akhara

Also read:

Ayodhya Dispute to be settled by a ‘confidential’ Court monitored mediation; No Gag order passed [Full Report]

Should Ayodhya dispute be decided by mediation? SC to decide on March 6 [Full Report]

Ram Mandir Babri Masjid| Ayodhya matter not to be referred to larger bench; matter not barred by res judicata in Ismail Faruqui case either: SC

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.