Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan spoke exclusively to Republic TV's Legal Editor Rhythm Anand Bhardwaj on Tuesday, December 3, after his sacking from the Ayodhya review case. During the interview, he revealed the infighting between the Muslim parties that were involved in the case. He said:
"There was some friction between the Muslim parties. This has happened before. Mr Maqbool put pressure on me earlier because he said that I should appear for Jamiat because they want me to appear for them. Other parties said that I need to appear for them and not the Jamiat. I told Mr. Maqbool that I will not enter into this controversy. It is simply a problem that they must sort out."
He further said, "I will accept the Jamiat brief because I have been arguing it for a number of days and it was the lead brief in the matter. It was as simple as that. During this period, there was some friction between the Muslim parties which was inevitable. There was also friction among the Hindu parties. That’s why we kept the team together. And one part of my responsibility was to keep the team together.”
According to the senior advocate, the Shia Waqf Board was playing “its own game”. He said, "The stance of the Shia Waqf Board was nothing short of disgraceful. There was a case that was decided against them in 1946. Last year, they filed an SLP several years later saying that this was actually theirs. I pointed it out in court, in fact, I called one of their counsels Traitoruddin. The reason was that the Shia Waqf Board said that we give this site. Can you give what you don’t have? Can you file a case after 70 days? So, the Shia Waqf Board is playing its own game."
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan informed that he has been removed from the council through a Facebook post, a day after the Muslim body filed a review petition on the Supreme Court's Ayodhya judgment. The review petition was filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind on Monday, December 2. In the post, Dhavan said, he was informed by advocate-on-record Ejaz Maqbool (who is representing Jamiat) that he has been sacked from the Babri case. Dhavan also said he is no longer associated with the case or the review. However, in another Facebook post, Dhavan has said that the reason cited by the secretary of Jamiat, Mahmood Madani is 'malicious and untrue'.
Pronouncing the landmark judgment in the Ayodhya dispute case on November 9, the Supreme Court, delivered a unanimous judgment in the title suit of the disputed area awarding it to the Hindu parties for the construction of a temple. It also directed the Centre to come up with a scheme within three months to set up a trust which will hand over the outer courtyard and inner courtyard of the site for construction of a temple. Apart from this, the SC stated that an alternate land of 5 acres is to be allotted to Muslims for the liberty of constructing a mosque, either by the central government or the State government, in a suitable and prominent place in Ayodhya. CJI Ranjan Gogoi, while delivering the unanimous judgment, dismissed the claims of the Sunni Central Waqf Board and the Nirmohi Akhara. He also termed that the three-way division of the disputed land by the Allahabad HC in its 2010 verdict is wrong.