Sacked as Jamiat counsel following drafting overview plea: Rajeev Dhavan

NEW DELHI: Senior advocate

Rajeev Dhavan

, who represented Muslim functions in the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid case in the course of the forty-day arguments in the Supreme Court docket, triggered a controversy on Tuesday, professing he was “sacked from the case” irrespective of getting drafted the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind’s critique petition versus the SC’s November 9 verdict.

“All the even though, I experienced argued for united Muslim litigants in the case. The moment there is a division in the group (around submitting of review petition), I do not want to aspect with 1 faction or the other. I want them to be united in battling the case,” Dhavan told TOI.

The progress brought out in sharp relief the break up between Muslim litigants on whether to find a evaluation of the apex court’s verdict awarding the web-site to Hindus for the building of Ram Mandir.

Requested if the conclusion of the Sunni Waqf Board, a person of the first plaintiffs which experienced submitted the go well with in 1961, not to file a assessment petition also indicated even more division amid Muslim get-togethers, Dhavan claimed that the Waqf Board chairman had allegedly been place below stress by the UP chief minister — even when arguments were heading on in the apex courtroom — to switch advocate-on-document Ejaz Maqbool.

Force was there all the time, but I experienced place my foot down and said I will keep on in the scenario only if this AoR is there,” Dhavan told TOI. With regard to the JuH plea, responding to a telephone connect with from Maqbool “informing me that I have been ‘sacked’ from further more involvement in the Babri situation on behalf of his client”, Dhavan wrote a letter, stating, “I accept the sacking with no demur.” He went on to explain discrepancies involving JuH and the team steered by Zafaryab Jilani in excess of looking for evaluate of the SC judgment. The JuH filed its overview petition on December two.

Dhavan, whose combative posture outlined the Ayodhya hearings, further claimed, “Over the draft of the critique (petition), you (Maqbool), Akriti and Qurratlain satisfied me on November 25 and thirty. Meanwhile, Jilani and others satisfied me desirous of meeting more to discuss ‘our’ draft which you would mail to them. Following the assembly with Jilani’s team (so to talk), you knowledgeable me that you required to file (on JuH’s behalf) impartial of the Jilani group.”

“Since I appeared for M Siddiq (our client), I informed Jilani appropriately and indicated that these issues ought to be sorted out by customers and briefing attorneys. On December one, Akriti and Qurratlain fulfilled me and we all but settled the draft of the review and had been to satisfy nowadays to finalise some particulars. Your contact right now (December two) initiated and confirmed my sacking.” His aggressive interventions in the course of the hearing experienced annoyed the bench far more than when.

In the context of the Waqf Board stand, Dhavan mentioned, “Then, there was this drama of a cooked up settlement by the 3-member mediation panel on the thirty ninth and 40th times of argument in the circumstance in which Sunni Waqf Board experienced purportedly agreed to give up declare over the disputed land. Matters worsened (between the Muslim get-togethers) following that. All I would say is that I would like that all Muslim functions unite to struggle for assessment of the Ayodhya judgment.”

When informed that replacement and dropping of senior advocates by clients was a regular phenomenon, Dhavan mentioned he way too thought that it was the prerogative of the client and the advocate-on-record to keep or discharge the solutions of a senior advocate.

If that was so, why did he determine to make the letter general public and tweet his sights on the ‘sacking’? “I would not have gone community experienced three canards — I was not sacked I was so unwell that I could not cope with the case and 3rd, I would not be able to fulfill the Monday deadline for submitting of JuH’s overview petition — have been not unfold in the media,” Dhavan stated.

“The AoR referred to as me when I was with my dentist and agreed that I have been sacked. Next, I was not sick. 3rd, in my entire career as a lawyer, I have hardly ever skipped a deadline about a scenario. I was included till the eleventh hour in finalising the draft of the overview petition and, for this reason, made a decision to make general public the facts at the rear of the unsavoury episode. I have not developed this controversy,” he included.