SC strongly condemns UP minister’s comment on court

Supreme Court of India
- Advertisement -

New Delhi– The Supreme Court on Thursday took a strong view on the statement of a Uttar Pradesh Minister that “SC is ours” in reference to the Ayodhya case and cautioned against the irresponsible conduct.

Uttar Pradesh minister Mukut Bihari Verma on Tuesday said that the temple will be constructed in Ayodhya since “Supreme Court is ours”.

Addressing a press conference in the state’s Bahraich two days ago, he had said: “Construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya is our resolve. The Supreme Court is ours. The judiciary, this country and the temple are ours too.”

This was apprised to the top court by Sunni Waqf Board’s counsel and senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan saying that a minister has also said that they “own” the disputed site and the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi strongly condemned the threat and said that this things should not happen.

“This should not be happening in the country. We deprecate such statements. Both sides are free to put their arguments before court without any fear,” he said.

Dhavan also told the court that even his law clerk has been issued a threat in the apex court premises and said: “Let me make it absolutely clear that I don’t argue against Hindu faith.”

As soon the hearing began, Dhavan told the court that a week ago, he received a threatening message on Facebook warning that “they will see him outside the court”.

Some people also messaged him asking which side he was on and whether he is against the deity (Lord Ram), Dhavan said adding that these things did not create a good atmosphere and that he is under pressure.

Citing a contempt petition filed against an octogenarian for cursing him, he said that he cannot file a contempt petition after a contempt petition.

As the court asked Dhavan whether he wants security and protection, the senior counsel said that he did not need these as the court’s assurance is enough for him.

He said he had been non-partisan when it comes to arguing a case, which he did while arguing the Kashi and Kamakhya cases in the past. (IANS)


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here